Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any ... · Revision History Revision Date...

1

PMComanchePeakPEm Resource

From: [email protected]: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:12 AMTo: Monarque, Stephen; Willingham, MichaelCc: [email protected]: Update Tracking ReportAttachments: ER _UpdateTrackingReport_Rev2.pdf; FSAR _UpdateTrackingReport_Rev1.pdf

I realized in the middle of the night that I did not include the attachments with this letter. My apologies. Thanks, John Conly COLA Project Manager NuBuild Luminant Power (254) 897-5256

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, contains or may contain confidential information intended only for the addressee. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, be advised that any reading, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply message and delete this email message and any attachments from your system.

Hearing Identifier: ComanchePeak_COL_Public Email Number: 527 Mail Envelope Properties (95E7006FD6637C4AAE706E18F8C97B34025A0895) Subject: Update Tracking Report Sent Date: 4/29/2009 8:11:55 AM Received Date: 4/29/2009 8:12:57 AM From: [email protected] Created By: [email protected] Recipients: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Tracking Status: None "Monarque, Stephen" <[email protected]> Tracking Status: None "Willingham, Michael" <[email protected]> Tracking Status: None Post Office: MDCTXUEXCL01N3.corptxu.txu.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 732 4/29/2009 8:12:57 AM ER _UpdateTrackingReport_Rev2.pdf 1927638 FSAR _UpdateTrackingReport_Rev1.pdf 1194085 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received:

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4 COL Application

Part 3,

Environmental Report

Update Tracking Report

Revision 2

April 24, 2009

Revision History

Revision Date Update Description 0 3/31/2009 No technical changes in Rev.0

Editorial Changes in Chapters: Ch.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10

1 4/19/2009 Updated Chapters: Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9

2 4/24/2009 Updated Chapters: Ch. 1, 2, 4, 5, 10

Chapter 1

1_1

Chapter 1 Tracking Report Revision List

Change ID No.

Section ER Rev. 0 Page

Reason for change Change Summary Rev. of

ERT/R

CTS-00615 Acronyms andAbbreviations

1-xv Editorial correction Change “MPT Main Power Transformer” to “MT Main Transformer”.

0

CTS-00462 Table 1.3-2 1.3-5 Match to NUREG 1555

Change section titles of 4.7, 4.8, 5.11 and 5.13.

0

LU-02 Figure 1.1-5 _ Represent line from CPNPP to DeCordova as a new line.

Change color of line from CPNPP to DeCordova from red to green.

1

CTS-00693 Table 1.2-1 1.2-3 1.2-4 1.2-51.2-6 1.2-8 1.2-9

Table needs to accurately reflect the permit conditions and permits required.

Table 1.2-1 updated to reflect only those permits that apply.

1

CTS-00694 Table 1.2-1 1.2-3 1.2-41.2-51.2-6 1.2-8 1.2-9

Editorial Adjust column setting and row to improve the readability

1

MET-25 Table 1.2-1 1.2-9 ER Site Audit NRC information need

Add TCEQ 30 TAC 116 State Construction Air Permit

1

ALT-11 1.0 1.0-1 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Revised subsection to include a concise statement of the purpose and the need for the proposed project.

2

CTS-00693 Table 1.2-1 1.2-9 Editorial Removed the information for financial institutions

2

1.2-9

NRC Appendix B - Facilities Operating License Environmental Protection Plan, non-radiological

Changes required in the Environmental Protection Plan, non-radiological, to be modified pending final design reviews, approvals, and prior to operation of the facility.

TCEQ Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit

Demonstrate compliance with ambient air standards BACT requirements, Clean Air Mercury Rule, Clean Air Interstate Rule as applicable.

TCEQ 30 TAC 321.25530 TAC 210.2330 TAC 309

Evaporation pond liner and size requirements

Certify evaporation pond meets requirements prior to use.

Financial Lending Institutions, if needed

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Phase II Intrusive Investigation

Conduct site assessment and report forsubmittal to lending institutions as applicable.

TCEQ Hazardous materials storage (SARA Title III)

TCEQ

Disposal Facility

Toxic chemical release inventory reporting form

Radwaste disposal registration

PUC of Texas PUC approval of decommissioning plan

TCEQ 30 TAC 116 State construction air permit

TABLE 1.2-1 (Sheet 7 of 7)FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AUTHORIZATIONS

Agency Authority Requirements License/Permit No. Activity Comment CTS-00694

CTS-00693

CTS-00693

CTS-00693

CTS-00693

CTS-00693

MET-25

Chapter 2

2_1


Change ID No.


Reason for change

Change Summary Rev. of ER T/R


2-xlii Editorial correction

Change “MPT Main Power Transformer” to “MT Main Transformer”.

0

CTS-00611 2.1 2.1-1 Erratum Change “624,067” to “653,320”; “61,115” to “62,306”; “39,875” to “39,987”; “37,976” to “41,564”; “29,184” to “29,689” to match 2006 US Census instead of 2005 US Census.

0

CTS-00611 2.1.1 2.1-2 Updated referencerequired to provide 2006 data not 2005 data

Change (US Census 2005) to (US Census 2006) notated as US Census Bureau. “American FactFinder – Texas By Place GCT Population Estimates.” US Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Available URL: Http://factfinder:census.gov/servlet/home/en/official - estimates.html,Accessed July 24, 2008.

0

CTS-00459 2.3.1.1.5 2.3-4 Erratum Change “384 ac” to “400 ac”. 0

CTS-00455 2.3.3.3.5 2.3-61 Editorial correction

Delete “No” and add “Other than CPNPP Units 1 and 2,”.

0

CTS-00648 2.3.1.1.6 2.3-4 Erratum Change “0.25 ac” to “0.78 ac”. 0

MET-04 List of Tables 2-xvii and 2-xviii

Erratum Add “Dallas” in front of “Fort Worth” and “Airport” after Fort Worth

1

MET-14 List of Tables 2-xix 2-xx

Increaseinformationas discussed with the NRC.

Add tables: 2.7-129, 2.7-130, 2.7-131, 2.7-132, 2.7-133, 2.7-134, 2.7-135

1

LU-05 2.2.1.1 2.2-1 Erratum Revise paragraph to clarify mineral rights.

1

LU-01 2.2.2 2.2-5 Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

Insert sentence and add “CDP” to Pecan Plantation to clarify Pecan Plantation is a housing development and not an incorporated town.

1

2_2

Change ID No.


Reason for change



Insert sentence to clarify zoning along Lake Granbury.

1


Revised text to include information on Proctor Lake and adjust numbers accordingly.

1

LU-08 Figure 2.2-3 Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

Show location of state parks. 1

SOC-11 2.5.2.7.2.1 2.5-18 Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

Updated with current information and revised text to discuss public safety and medical services for Hood and Somervell counties.

1

SOC-11 2.5.2.7.2.1 2.5-19 Erratum Update reference (The Nursing Home Project 2006) to (The Nursing Home Project 2006a).

1

SOC-11 2.5.2.7.2.2 2.5-19 Erratum Update reference citation from TDPS 2004 to TDPS 2006

1


Add new subsections to discuss Bosque, Erath, Johnson, and Tarrant counties public safety and medical services.

1


Updated with current information and revised text to discuss public safety and medical services for Hood and Somervell counties. Update reference citation from TDPS 2004 to TDPS 2006

1

CR-04 2.5.3.6 2.5-25 Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

New subsection to include background for 2.5.3.

1

CR-04 2.5.6 2.5-29 Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

Add 13 new reference notations that are cited in the new Subsection 2.5.3.6.

1

SOC-13 2.5.4.4 2.5-28 Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

Revised Subsection to include information on subsistence populations.

1

2_3

Change ID No.


Reason for change


SOC-11 2.5.6 2.5-32 Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

Update reference notation from (The Nursing Home Project 2006) to (The Nursing Home Project 2006a)

1


Update reference notation from (TDPS 2004) information to (TDPS 2006) information.

1


Revised to include 11 new reference notations.

1

MET-03 2.7.1.2.4 2.7-11 Erratum Add “16” to number of day each year and “by county” to wind events to reconcile thunderstorm information.

1

MET-04 2.7.1.2.8 2.7-17 Erratum Add “the” in front of “Dallas Fort Worth and Airport” after “Fort Worth” to correct the reference to Forth Worth Airport.

1

MET-13 2.7.2.1.2 2.7-19 and2.7-23

Erratum Replaced 2001 – 2006 with 2001 – 2004 and 2006 to describe which data years were used.

1

MET-04 2.7.2.1.4 2.7-23 Erratum Add “Dallas” in front of Fort Worth Airport to correct the reference to Forth Worth Airport.

1

MET-11 2.7.2.1.7 2.7-25 Erratum Change Table 2.7-34 to Table 2.3-23 to correct reference to the table.

1

MET-13 2.7.3.1 2.7-28 Erratum Replaced 2001 – 2006 with 2001 – 2004 and 2006 to describe which data years were used.

1

MET-12 2.7.3.1 2.7-28 Erratum Remove “control room” and replace with “low population zone” to correct reference to control room.

1

2_4

Change ID No.


Reason for change


MET-13 2.7.3.2 And2.7.4.2

2.7-30and2.7-31

Erratum Replaced 2001 – 2006 with 2001 – 2004 and 2006 to describe which data years were used.

1

MET-14 2.7.4.3 2.7-33 Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

Insert new Subsection to include evaporate pond results.

1

MET-03 Table 2.7-11 2.7-68 Erratum Change numbers in average per year (#/yr)

1

MET-13 Table 2.7-11 2.7-68 Erratum Replaced 2006 with 7/31/2006 to describe which data years were used.

1

MET-13 Table 2.7-85 2.7-68 Erratum Replaced 2001 – 2006 with 2001 – 2004 and 2006 to describe which data years were used.

1

MET-04 Table 2.7-86 2.7-150

Erratum Add “Dallas” in front of “Fort Worth Airport” to correct the reference to Forth Worth Airport.

1

MET-04 Table 2.7-96 2.7-162

Erratum Add “Dallas” in front of Fort Worth and “Airport” after “Fort Worth” to correct the reference to Forth Worth Airport.

1

MET-04 Table 2.7-99 2.7-165

Erratum Add “Dallas” in front of “Fort Worth Airport” to correct the reference to Forth Worth Airport.

1

MET-14 Table 2.7-129 through Table 2.7-135

Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

Add Tables 2.7-129, 2.7-130, 2.7-131, 2.7-132, 2.7-133, 2.7-134, and 2.7-135.

1

SOC-07 List of Tables 2-xi Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

Changed the Title of Table 2.5-16 from “Hood and Somervell County 2002 and 2007 Property Taxes” to “Economic Region 2002 and 2007 Property Taxes”

2

2_5

Change ID No.


Reason for change


SOC-06 2.5.2.1 2.5-8 Editorial Correction

Removed “counties” Changed Table 5.8-1 to 5.8-2.

2

SOC-06SOC-03

2.5.2.1 2.5-10 Errata Changed number of workers from “4300” to “4953” and from “550” to “494”

2

SOC-07 2.5.2.3.1 2.5-13 Editorial Correction

Changed “Hood and Somervell” to “the cities and” and added “in the economic region”

2

SOC-07 2.5.2.3.1 2.5-13 Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

Revised discussion in subsection to discuss the state and local taxes associated with the proposed units.

2

SOC-07 2.5.6 2.5-31 Editorial correction

Revised reference from (Combs 2007) to (Combs 2007a).

Added reference (Combs 2009).

2

SOC-07 2.5.6 2.5-35 2.5-31

Increaseinformationas discussed with the NRC.

Removed reference notation for (Combs 2006). Added two new reference notations as a result of the revisions to subsection 2.5.2.3.1.

2

SOC-07 Table 2.5-16 2.5-64 Increase informationas discussed with the NRC.

Revised table to increase information for local taxes.

2

2-xi

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Number Title

2.5-3 The Current Residential and Transient Population for Each Sector 0 – 16 km (10 mi)

2.5-4 The Projected Transient Population for Each Sector 0 – 80 km (50 mi) for Years 2007, 2016, 2026, 2036, 2046, and 2056

2.5-5 Counties Entirely or Partially Located Within the CPNPP Region

2.5-6 Municipalities in the CPNPP Region

2.5-7 Distribution of Population in the CPNPP Region by Age and Sex

2.5-8 Contributors to Transient Population Within the CPNPP Region

2.5-9 Top Events in the CPNPP Region

2.5-10 Employment by Industry (2001 – 2006)

2.5-11 Top Employers Located in Hood County

2.5-12 Top Employers Located in Somervell County

2.5-13 Employment Trends in the Economic Region 2001 – 2006

2.5-14 Income Distribution by Household for Communities near CPNPP

2.5-15 Per Capita Personal Income – 1996, 2001, and 2006

2.5-16 Hood and Somervell CountyEconomic Region 2002 and 20076 Property Taxes

2.5-17 CPNPP Ad Valorem Net Taxes 2006

2.5-18 Housing in Communities Closest to CPNPP

2.5-19 Percent of Houses Built by Decade

2.5-20 Public Water Systems within Hood and Somervell Counties

2.5-21 Historical Sites within a 10-mi Radius of the CPNPP Site in Somervell County

2.5-22 Historical Sites within a 10-mi Radius of the CPNPP Site in Hood County

2.5-23 Historical Sites within a 1-mi Radius of the CPNPP Site

SOC-07

2.5-8

2.5.2.1 Economy

The economic region includes those counties most likely to be affected by the construction and operation of CPNPP Units 3 and 4. Based on the distribution of the workforce, those counties include Bosque, Erath, Hood, Johnson, Somervell, and Tarrant counties (Table 5.8-21). The local economic centers near CPNPP are Glen Rose in Somervell County and Granbury in Hood County. The largest economic center within the CPNPP region is Fort Worth in Tarrant County. Table 2.5-10 details total employment and employment levels by industrial sector for the economic region.

In Bosque County in 2006, the sectors with the highest employment levels were government and government industries (15.2 percent) and retail trade (9.6 percent). The industry with the largest growth from 2001 – 2006 was real estate with an annual increase of 10.3 percent. The industry with the largest decrease was transporting and warehouse (-5.0 percent annually). Total employment in the county increased by 1.1 percent annually (BEA 2006a).

In Erath County in 2006, the government and government enterprises sector employed the largest amount of people (16.2 percent of employment) followed by the retail trade sector (10.6 percent). The industry with the largest growth from 2001 - 2006 was transporting and warehousing, with an annual increase of 18.1 percent. The industry with the largest decline was manufacturing (-4.8 percent annually). Total employment in the county increased by 1.7 percent annually (BEA 2006b).

In Hood County in 2006, the sectors with the largest employment were retail trade (15.0 percent) and government and government enterprises (12.8 percent). The industry with the largest growth was mining, with an increase of 44.8 percent annual from 2001 – 2006. A large portion of the increase in mining is due to the presence of the Barnett Shale in the county, and mining employment is expected to continue to increase until at least 2015 (Business Wire 2007). The industry with the largest decline was educational services with a decrease of 0.2 percent annually. Total employment in the county increased by 3.5 percent annually (BEA 2006c).

In Johnson County in 2006, the retail trade sector employed the largest amount of people (13.5 percent of employment) followed by the government and government enterprises sector (11.2 percent) and the construction sector (11.1 percent). The industry with the largest growth from 2001 – 2006 was transporting and warehousing, with an annual increase of 13.3 percent. The industry with the largest decline was manufacturing (-2.8 percent annually). Total employment in the county increased by 3.6 percent annually (BEA 2006d).

In Somervell County in 2006, the government and government enterprises sector employed the largest amount of people (14.2 percent of employment) followed by the retail trade sector (7.3 percent). The industry with the largest growth from 2001 – 2006 was real estate, with an annual increase of 11.7 percent. The industry with the largest decline was manufacturing (-5.2 percent). Total employment in the county decreased by 0.5 percent annually (BEA 2006e).

In Tarrant County in 2006, the sectors with the largest employment were retail trade (11.6 percent) and government and government enterprises (10.6 percent). The industry with the largest growth was real estate, with an increase of 7.0 percent annual from 2001 – 2006. The

SOC-06

2.5-10

The heavy construction workforce data were analyzed by Workforce Development Area (WDA). The North Central WDA consists of Collin, Denton, Ellis, Erath, Hood, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Navarro, Palo Pinto, Parker, Rockwell, Somervell, and Wise counties. Of these counties, eight are located partially or entirely within the region. The North Central WDA had 6200 employed in heavy and civil engineering construction in 2002. By 2012, this number is projected to increase 19.4 percent or 1200 people. The Tarrant WDA consists solely of Tarrant County. The Tarrant WDA had 5600 people employed in heavy and civil engineering construction in 2002. This number is projected to increase 13.4 percent or 650 people by 2012 (TWC 2002).

Table 4.4-1 shows the type of skilled craftsmen needed for the construction of CPNPP Units 3 and 4. Table 4.4-3 shows the number of craftsmen with those skills in the North Central and Tarrant WDAs. The construction labor force is discussed in Subsection 4.4.2.1.

During the peak phase of construction for CPNPP Units 3 and 4, up to 43004953 workers are estimated to be required to complete the facility. In addition to the 1000 operation workers for CPNPP Units 1 and 2, an estimated 550494 additional operation workers are needed for the new units. The number of operation workers is discussed more fully in Subsection 5.8.2.1.

2.5.2.2 Transportation

The CPNPP region is accessible by a transportation network of farm to market roads, federal and state highways, and railway, as well as a public airport. The Paluxy and Brazos Rivers are near the site, but there is no access to CPNPP by water-born transportation methods. Due to the predominantly rural setting and small sizes of the cities present near the site, most traffic is by either personal vehicle or over the road tractor/trailer transport. The transportation analysis focuses primarily on roads near the plant in Hood and Somervell counties. Figure 2.5-5 illustrates the road and highway system of Hood and Somervell counties, while Figure 2.5-6 charts the location of airports and rail systems in the region.

Public transit in Hood and Somervell Counties is limited to bus service, provided by The Transit System (TTS). TTS is a rural public transportation system but also provides travel to the Fort Worth area (SCDC 2007).

2.5.2.2.1 Roads

U.S. Highway 67 (US 67) is the only federal highway in Somervell County. It is located to the south of the site and runs from northeast to southwest through the City of Glen Rose. The only federal highway in Hood County is US 377, a four-lane divided highway, which also runs northeast to southwest and passes through Granbury. Texas State Highway 144 (SH144) passes to the east of the site and connects US 67 to US 377. Numerous farm-to-market (FM) roads traverse the county, providing rural access to the larger populated areas. FM 56 provides the only access to the CPNPP site. FM 56 is a two-lane highway that runs from north to south, connecting US 377 at Tolar to US 67 at Glen Rose. Plant workers are expected to commute, because there are no provisions for housing at the CPNPP site.

For the plant workers who live in Hood County, FM 56 south from Tolar or FM 51, a two-lane highway, southwest from Granbury to FM 56 provides access to CPNPP. For workers in Somervell County, FM 56 north from Glen Rose provides access to the site. For those workers

SOC-03SOC-06

SOC-03SOC-06

2.5-13

2.5.2.3.1 Taxes

The tax structure for Texas is found in Titles 1 through 3 of the Texas Code of Laws 1979 and its revisions: Title 1 deals with property taxes, Title 2 deals with state taxation, and Title 3 deals with local taxation. Expectations are that Hood and Somervellthe cities and counties in the economicregion are the tax districts most directly affected by the construction and operation of CPNPP Units 3 and 4.

The state of Texas has no personal or corporate income taxes. There is a corporate franchise tax that has a component based on corporate earned surplus. In 2008, however, the margin tax replaces the franchise tax. Under this tax, a company owes one percent of gross receipts less compensation or the costs of goods sold. The rate is reduced to 0.5 percent for retailers and wholesalers, while sole proprietorships, general partnerships, and businesses with total revenues of under $300,000 are exempt (The Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce 2006).

Sales and use tax is imposed on all retail sales, leases and rental of goods, and taxable services. The state tax rate is 6.25 percent. Local agencies can add an additional 0.25 – 2.0 percent, with the state tax rate plus local tax rate not to exceed 8.25 percent (Combs 2007a). Groceries and both prescription and non-prescription drugs are exempt from sales tax. Bosque, Erath, andHood counties impose a county sales and use tax of 0.5 percent. Johnson, Somervell, and Tarrant counties do not charge a sales and use tax. Cleburne, Granbury, Stephenville, and Tolar tax at a rate of 1.5 percent, while Glen Rose has a sales and use tax of 2 percent. The city of Fort Worth has a tax rate of 1 percent while the Fort Worth MTA and the Fort Worth Crime Control SPD Tax each charge 0.5 percent (Combs 2009). By combining county and city taxes, it can be seen that most populated areas have tax rates at the maximum 8.25 percent.

Texas has no state property tax. Property taxes are levied by counties, cities, school districts, and special districts (junior colleges, hospitals, road districts, and others).

In 2002, Hood County levied $7,455,898 in property taxes while Somervell collected $5,850,365.The largest school districts collected significantly more: Granbury Independent School District (ISD) collected $33,209,441 while Glen Rose ISD collected $18,833,355 (Combs 2002). In20076, Hood County levied $13,143,253 in property taxes, almost double the amount of 2002. Granbury Independent School District (ISD) tax revenues levied $43,428,942, an increase of increased approximately $710 million since 2002, while lowering the total tax rate by $0.560.29.Somervell County showed a similar increase in tax revenues, with an increase of approximately $2.6 million$6,483,390 levied. Glen Rose ISD levied show $21,879,118, an increase of approximately $53 million while decreasingincreasing the tax rate by $0.2005 (Combs 2007b6).Table 2.5-16 shows property tax rates and amounts for Hood and Somervell counties for 2002 and 2006. All counties show an increase in property tax revenues from 2006 to 2007, with only Bosque and Hood counties increasing their tax rates.

Ad valorem taxes are paid on the new CPNPP units. The ad valorem taxes are paid in two categories: (1) personal propertry and (2) real property. The two categories are assessed at the same rate. The taxed amounts are phased in through the years of construction with the total market value assessed January 1 of the year the units are operational. The taxes on CPNPP Units 3 and 4 are expected to be assessed at the same tax rates in effect on CPNPP Units 1 and 2 for each tax jurisdiction. Currently, CPNPP Units 1 and 2 pay taxes to Somervell County,

SOC-07

SOC-07

SOC-07

2.5-14

Somervell County Water District, and Glen Rose ISD. CPNPP Units 3 and 4 are expected to paytaxes at the same rate and to the same jurisdictions as the existing units. Currently, CPNPP Units 1 and 2 pay taxes to 6 jurisdictions in Hood County and 4 jurisdictions in Somervell County. Personal property taxes make up 99 percent of the total taxes for Somervell County but only 30 percent of the total taxes for Hood County. However, the rates for CPNPP Units 3 and 4 are not finalized. Table 2.5-17 shows the amount of net ad valorem taxes paid by jurisdiction for 2006.

Based on Table 2.5-16 and 2.5-17, the ad valorem taxes from CPNPP Units 3 and 4 paid to Somervell County and Glen Rose ISD in 2006 are nearly comparable to the amount received from property taxes. In contrast, the amount of ad valorem taxes paid to Hood County and Granbury ISD are only a fraction of the amount those districts receive through property taxes. The impacts of construction of CPNPP Units 3 and 4 on taxes are discussed in Subsection 4.4.2.2.1 while the impacts of operation on taxes are discussed in Subsection 5.8.2.2.1.

2.5.2.3.2 Political Structure

The CPNPP site is situated on the border of Hood and Somervell counties. The site is also located on the border of Texas House of Representatives Districts 59 and 60, because the boundary follows the county line. The site is entirely within Texas Senate District 22 (Texas Legislative Council 2007).

There are a total of nine congressional districts within the CPNPP region: Districts 6, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 24, 26, and 31. The CPNPP site is located within the 17th Texas Congressional District.

Local emergency planning in Texas is the responsibility of the mayors and county judges within their jurisdictions. In Hood County, this responsibility is delegated to the Fire Marshal. Local emergency management includes threat identification and prevention, training for local officials, hazard mitigation programs, and coordinating emergency response operations. In Somervell County, the responsibility is retained by the county judge.

2.5.2.4 Land Use and Zoning

CPNPP is located at the border of Hood and Somervell counties. As the location overlaps the edges of both counties, operation and development of CPNPP has the largest socioeconomic effect on those two counties out of the nineteen counties that are completely or partially within the region of CPNPP.

The largest city that intersects the vicinity of CPNPP is Granbury. Granbury is also the county seat for Hood County. As such, Granbury has land-use zoning laws in place that mandate and regulate acceptable land-use practices. Granbury is the only city in Hood County that has defined zoning laws.

In Somervell County, Glen Rose is the only city that has zoning laws. Outside of the corporate city limits, there are no zoning laws in Somervell County. In Somervell and Hood counties, because there is little zoning or designated land use outside of the communities, code and regulation enforcement is administered through the appropriate town or city, county, state, or federal governmental agency with the appointed oversight powers.

SOC-07

2.5-40

(Combs 2007a) Combs, Susan. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. “Sales and Use Tax.” Available URL: http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/taxinfo/sales. Accessed March 28, 2007.

(Combs 2007b) Combs, Susan. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. "2007 Texas Property TaxRates by County." Available URL: http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/proptax/07taxrates. Accessed March 10, 2009.

(Combs 2009) Combs, Susan. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. "Sales Tax Rate Calculation." Available URL: http://ecpa.cpa.state.tx.us/taxrates/RateCalc.jsp. Accessed March 10, 2009.

(The Cowtown 2007) The Cowtown. “The Cowtown Marathon: Our History.” Available URL: http://www.cowtownmarathon.org/home.asp. Accessed February 23, 2007.

(Craftlister 2005a) Craftlister.com. “Antique Alley and Yard Sale (April).” Available URL: http://www.EventLister.com/E1005303. Accessed February 2, 2007.

(Craftlister 2005b) Craftlister.com. “Antique Alley and Yard Sale (September).” Available URL: http://www.EventLister.com/E1011565. Accessed February 2, 2007.

(Crook and Harris 1952) Crook, W. and R. Harris. The Trinity Aspect of the Archaic Horizon. TheCarrollton and Elam Foci. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and Paleontological Society, Vol. 23, pp. 7-38.

(Ewell 1895) Ewell, Thomas T. History of Hood County. Reprinted in Hood County History in Picture and Story. Historical Publishers, Fort Worth, 1978.

(Elam 2006) Elam, Richard. Somervell County. The Handbook of Texas Online. The Texas State Historical Association: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles.

(BOP 2007) Federal Bureau of Prisons. “Federal Prison Facilities South Central Region.” Available URL: http://www.bop.gov/locations/maps/SCR.jsp. Accessed February 23, 2007.

(FWCOC 2006) Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce. “Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce Information Center 2006 Major Employers.” Available URL: http://www.fortworthchamber.com/eco/docs/nfo_select_major_employees.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2007.

(FWPD 2009) Fort Worth Police Department. “Fort Worth Police Department.” Available URL:http://www.fortworthpd.com. Accessed March 13, 2009.

(Gallagher 1974) Gallagher, Joseph G. Results of Small Survey of Comanche Peak Transmission Lines and Pipeline Right-Of-Ways. Unnumbered report prepared by the Archaeology Research Program, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, 1974.

(Gallagher and Bearden 1976) Gallagher, Joseph G. and Susan E. Bearden The Hopewell Site:A Late Archaic Campsite in the Central Brazos River Valley. Southern Methodist University, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Contributions in Anthropology No. 19.

SOC-07

SOC-07

CR-04

SOC-11

CR-04

2.5-45

(US Census 2000e) U.S. Census Bureau 0. “Census 2000 SF1 Data.” Available URL: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/sumfile1.html. Accessed March 8, 2007.

(US Census 2006) U.S. Census Bureau. “American FactFinder – Texas by Place GCT-T1 Population Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/home/en/official_estimates.html, Accessed July 24, 2008.

(USDA 2002a) U.S. Department of Agriculture. Census of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. “Table 1: County Summary Highlights 2002, County Data.” Available URL: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Pull_Data_Census. Accessed March 29, 2007.

(USDA 2002b) U.S. Department of Agriculture. Census of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. “Table 7: Hired Farm Labor – Workers and Payroll 2002, County Data.” Available URL: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census/Pull_Data_Census. Accessed March 29, 2007.

(USDA 2002c) U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). “2002 Census of Agriculture County Profiles, Somervell County, Texas.” Available URL: www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed January 26, 2007.

(USDA 2002d) U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). “2002 Census of Agriculture County Profiles, Hood County, Texas.” Available URL: www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed January 26, 2007.

(USDA 2005) U.S. Department of Agriculture. Geospatial Data Gateway. “Soil Survey Geo-graphic (SSURGO) database for Hood and Somervell Counties Texas.” Available URL: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov. (Accessed January 30, 2007).

(Wooldridge 1981) Wooldridge, H. 1981. Hood Substation 138 KV Line, Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Esprey, Huston and Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas. (January 1, 1981).

(TRE 2004) Trinity Railway Express. “Trinity Railway Express Facts.” Available URL: http://www.trinityrailwayexpress.org/traininfo.html. Accessed August 2, 2007.

(Business Wire 2007) Business Wire. "Study the First Complete Look at Economic Benefits of Barnett Shale to Entire Region." Available URL: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_May_16/ai_n27241565. Accessed July 29, 2008.

(Reuters 2008) Reuters. "Texas Energy Sector Booming." PRNewswire. Available URL: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS191623+28-Mar-2008+PRN20080328. Accessed July 28, 2008.

(Combs 2006) Combs, Susan. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. Annual Property TaxReport: Tax Year 2006." Available URL: http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/proptax/annual06/96-318.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2008.

SOC-07

2.5-73

TABLE 2.5-16ECONOMIC REGION 2002 AND 2007 PROPERTY TAXESHOOD AND

SOMERVELL COUNTY 2002 AND 2006 PROPERTY TAXES

2002 20076Total Tax Rate ($) Total Levy ($) Total Tax Rate Total Levy

Hood County 0.3325 7,455,898 0.3900 13,143,253

Granbury 0.4400 1,860,460 0.4150 2.904,434

Lipan 0.3300 32,399 0.4000 47,584

Tolar 0.4600 55,915 0.4600 78,222

Acton MUD 0.1322 924,416 0.1091 26,604

Granbury ISD 1.7300 33,209,441 1.4400 43,428,942

Lipan ISD 1.7500 913,191 1.6030 1,206,294

Tolar ISD 1.6700 1,089,765 1.5567 1,825,735

Somervell County 0.3300 5,850,365 0.3330 6,483,390

Glen Rose 0.4857 438,959 0.4711 575,852

Somervell Co. Water Dist. 0.0044 79,567 0.1223 2,380,863

Glen Rose ISD 1.0753 18,833,355 1.1278 21,879,118

Bosque County 0.3395 2,881,379 0.365 3,879,978

Clifton 0.43 420,987 0.3377 432,008

Meridian 0.4228 139,265 0.4274 209,897

Morgan 0.2155 12,027 0.2254 18,338

Valley Mills 0.379 97,906 0.439 165,830

Walnut Springs 0.3146 31,577 0.3043 45,178

Iredell 0.1793 10,946 0.1848 16,576

Cranfills Gap 0.2236 14,488 0.2254 19,793

Clifton ISD 1.5662 5,814,762 1.1675 4,825,159

Meridian ISD 1.3369 1,150,880 1.3342 1,717,902

Morgan ISD 1.43 548,701 1.04 538,682

Valley Mills ISD 1.695 1,816,906 1.314 2,219,619

Walnut Springs ISD 1.1 383,419 0.8999 562,229

Iredell ISD 1.473 587,081 1.1467 742,298

Kopperl ISD 1.5 943,039 1.0393 995,645

Cranfills Gap ISD 1.46 560,793 1.04 473,996

Erath County 0.47 5,842,771 0.4187 8,564,924

S0C-07

2.5-74

Dublin 0.6405 450,400 0.699 633,232

Stephenville 0.485 2,514,278 0.445 3,642,297

Middle Trinity Water Dist. 0.015 194,271 0.015 316,787

Three-Way ISD 1.18 283,904 1.04 348,861

Dublin ISD 1.4359 2,352,883 1.2369 3,134,719

Stephenville ISD 1.69 11,364,633 1.192 13,568,803

Bluff Dale ISD 1.3243 562,661 1.0962 1,224,852

Huckabay ISD 1.3999 755,172 1.04 1,006,166

Lingleville ISD 1.3912 550,664 1.1062 702,745

Morgan Mill ISD 1.2457 438,463 1.04 580,316

Hood County 0.3325 7,455,898 0.367 14,412,633

Granbury 0.44 1,860,460 0.415 3,621,038

Lipan 0.33 32,399 0.4 51,267

Tolar 0.46 55,915 0.46 82,081

Acton MUD 0.1322 924,416 0.1025 27,866

Granbury ISD 1.73 33,209,441 1.1712 40,667,901

Lipan ISD 1.75 913,191 1.2343 1,146,053

Tolar ISD 1.67 1,089,765 1.2493 1,764,950

Johnson County 0.4251 19,480,589 0.4098 34,274,715

Alvarado 0.7787 669,209 0.6973 1,133,006

Burleson 0.6043 5,981,933 0.6618 11,896,094

Godley 0.6195 114,132 0.5 258,884

Grandview 0.7107 281,142 0.7428 450,356

Keene 0.7296 693,358 0.8217 1,312,842

Venus 0.7317 354,933 0.7949 708,260

Cleburne 0.73 7,832,487 0.65 11,351,274

Joshua 0.5247 892,280 0.6562 1,636,730

Rio Vista 0.4989 90,206 0.528 161,290




S0C-07

2.5-75

Hill College - Alvarado 0.0455 231,024 0.0394 369,634

Johnson Co. Fire District 0.03 1,376,876 0.03 1,450,678

Hill College - Cleburne 0.0498 746,511 0.0399 1,006,758

Hill College - Godley 0.0381 59,722 0.0158 109,898

Hill College - Grandview 0.0425 62,375 0.036 101,903

Hill College - Joshua 0.0423 289,665 0.034 369,731

Hill College - Keene 0.045 46,652 0.0414 62,358

Hill College - Rio Vista 0.041 40,219 0.0268 54,438

Hill College - Venus 0.0408 66,538 0.0314 84,748

Alvarado ISD 1.71 7,516,409 1.41 12,100,968

Burleson ISD 1.7799 24,726,713 1.4051 34,005,557

Cleburne ISD 1.6937 22,274,081 1.2368 29,036,641

Grandview ISD 1.585 1,979,580 1.115 2,918,867

Joshua ISD 1.7381 10,237,791 1.46 14,522,508

Keene ISD 1.74 1,504,981 1.04 1,399,137

Rio Vista ISD 1.65 1,362,291 1.18 2,226,707

Venus ISD 1.5 2,131,198 1.18 2,993,159

Godley ISD 1.6133 2,283,340 1.0318 7,533,136

Somervell County 0.33 5,850,365 0.313 8,483,358

Glen Rose 0.4857 438,959 0.4669 606,625

Somervell Co. Water Dist. 0.0044 79,567 0.1266 3,431,275

Glen Rose ISD 1.0753 18,833,355 0.8784 24,839,584

Tarrant County 0.2725 217,224,792 0.2665 306,591,822

Azle 0.691 2,934,628 0.582 3,630,092

Bedford 0.3841 10,220,325 0.4469 13,302,843

Benbrook 0.7725 6,761,596 0.6975 8,946,590

Blue Mound 0.53 326,150 0.5925 442,668

Colleyville 0.3474 8,330,428 0.3559 12,076,730




S0C-07

2.5-76

Crowley 0.6574 1,971,333 0.5755 3,604,812

Dalworthington Gardens 0.172 373,443 0.2627 760,070

Edgecliff 0.36 505,757 0.3041 525,082

Everman 0.9091 1,019,739 0.8541 1,271,832

Forest Hill 0.925 2,722,690 0.95 3,748,093

Grapevine 0.366 17,921,003 0.3625 21,472,412

Haslet 0.35 928,461 0.2903 1,377,977

Keller 0.438 10,058,869 0.4322 15,343,607

Kennedale 0.7125 2,121,429 0.7225 3,174,458

Lakeside 0.298 173,803 0.298 272,596

Lake Worth 0.312 761,304 0.314 1,284,594

Mansfield 0.71 14,481,193 0.69 26,424,886

N. Richland Hills 0.57 16,161,306 0.57 20,365,275

Pantego 0.4502 883,642 0.3733 912,564

Richland Hills 0.4173 1,567,530 0.4507 1,937,954

Saginaw 0.54 3,700,524 0.456 5,155,069

Southlake 0.462 15,562,936 0.462 22,703,031

Westover Hills 0.5111 1,149,973 0.4156 1,450,037

Arlington 0.634 91,506,473 0.648 113,746,900

Euless 0.4973 9,956,304 0.47 12,242,964

Fort Worth 0.865 207,977,767 0.855 323,701,020

Haltom City 0.4558 5,920,234 0.5983 9,530,295

Hurst 0.499 9,139,758 0.535 12,318,629

River Oaks 0.798 1,283,393 0.7827 1,776,547

White Settlement 0.615 2,395,931 0.613 3,535,980

Watauga 0.5989 5,088,593 0.5808 5,933,251

Sansom Park 0.54 372,687 0.5 521,184

Pelican Bay 0.8751 129,487 0.8985 224,471

Westworth Village 0.5 150,482 0.5 721,455

Tarrant Co. FWSD #1 0.218 163,207 N/A N/A

Tarrant Co. Jt. College Dist. 0.1394 112,400,154 0.1394 160,880,850

Tarrant Co. WCID #1 0.02 5,295,960 0.02 8,057,666

Tarrant Co.EMSD 0.1 1,895,830 0.064 2,901,891




S0C-07

2.5-77

Note: Economic Region is defined as Bosque, Erath, Hood, Johnson, Somervell and Tarrant counties.

(Combs 2002), (Combs 2007b6)

Tarrant Co. Hospital Dist. 0.2324 185,258,869 0.2304 264,308,157

Arlington ISD 1.7405 297,046,110 1.278 252,450,796

Birdville ISD 1.617 89,389,755 1.405 96,346,771

Everman ISD 1.607 9,161,423 1.25 12,004,412

Fort Worth ISD 1.6858 274,494,781 1.19 276,273,396

Grapevine-Colleyville ISD 1.6598 128,258,956 1.29 129,786,041

Keller ISD 1.6519 86,604,276 1.3574 127,651,920

Mansfield ISD 1.682 71,402,963 1.45 112,433,679

Lake Worth ISD 1.68 6,509,973 1.535 11,297,182

Crowley ISD 1.723 44,672,352 1.409 60,264,479

Kennedale ISD 1.6231 10,408,820 1.35861 12,197,068

Azle ISD 1.65 17,102,630 1.19 22,312,399

Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD 1.7119 118,547,437 1.3037 105,529,787

Castleberry ISD 1.619 5,040,593 1.2033 5,463,733

Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD 1.55 42,520,233 1.3301 73,571,146

Carroll ISD 1.935 66,600,484 1.465 71,264,907

White Settlement ISD 1.58 11,183,992 1.466 18,952,537




S0C-07

Chapter 3

3_1


Change ID No.



ERT/R


3-xix Editorial correction Change “MPT Main Power Transformer” to “MT Main Transformer”.

0

CTS-00452 3.3.1.1 3.3-2 Editorial correction Change “average” to “estimated”.

0


0


0

CTS-00452 3.3.1.3 3.4-5 Editorial correction Remove “monthly average”. 0

CTS-00660 3.4.2.1 3.4-6 Editorial correction Add a sentence about passive screens of the intake system.

0

CTS-00495 Table 3.4-1 3.4-8 Editorial correction Superscript the number to represent scientific notation as opposed to a whole number

0

CTS-00612 3.5.1.1.2 3.5-5 To reflect DCD terminology

Add “containment Vessel” before reactor so that it reads: containment vessel reactor coolant drain tank, and change the acronym (RCDT) to (CVDT)

0

CTS-00612 3.5.1.1.2 3.5-6 Erratum Change the acronym (RCDT) to (CVDT)

0

CTS-00613 3.5.1.5 3.5-8 Editorial correction Remove “gaseous or airborne” and add “liquid” after radioactive

0

CTS-00468 3.5.4 3.5-16 Erratum Change “179 gpm” to “7 gpm”.

0

3_2

Change ID No.



ERT/R

CTS-00614 3.5.4 3.5-16 Erratum Change “119.79 gallons per hour (gal/hr)” to “approximately 2 gpm”.

0

CTS-00615 3.7.1 3.7-1 Editorial correction Change “CPNPP Units 3 and 4 Switching Station (CPNPP Units 3 and 4 Switching Station)” to “Plant Switching Station”.

0

CTS-00649 3.7.1 3.7-1 Editorial correction Change “plant switching station” to “Plant Switching Station”.

0

CTS-00615 3.7.2 3.7-2 Editorial correction Change “CPNPP Units 3 and 4 Switching Station” to “Plant Switching Station”.

0

CTS-00615 3.7.2 3.7-2 Editorial correction Change “Main Power Transformer (MPT)” to “Main Transformer (MT)”.

0

CTS-00616 3.7.2 3.7-3 Editorial correction Change “MPT” to “MT” 0

CTS-00615 3.7.2 3.7-3 Editorial correction Change “CPNPP Units 3 and 4 Switching Station” to “Plant Switching Station”.

0

CTS-00617 3.9.4 3.9-11 Erratum Change “four” to “five”. 0

CTS-00617 3.9.4 3.9-11 Erratum Change “94” to “74”. 0

CTS-00617 3.9.4 3.9-11 Erratum Change “50” to “37”. 0

CTS-00618 3.9.4.1.1 3.9-12 Erratum 1st paragraph Change “five” to “four”. Change “three” to “one”. Change “three” to “one”. Change “304” to “309”.

0

CTS-00618 3.9.4.1.2 3.9-12 Erratum Change area dimensions from “167” to “180”, and from “321” to “355”

0

3_3

Change ID No.



ERT/R

CTS-00618 3.9.4.1.2 3.9-12 Erratum Change “three” to “four”. 0

CTS-00691 Table 3.8-4 3.8-14 Update the proprietary status of information

Remove “Withheld from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 (a) (4)” from the title. Remove “Note: Luminant considers the location of alternative site proprietary.”

1

Chapter 4

4_1


Change ID No.


Reason for change

Change Summary Rev. of

ERT/R


4-xvii Editorial correction


0

CTS-00650 4.1.1.1 4.1-1 Erratum Change “275 ac” to “675 ac”. 0

CTS-00650 4.1.1.1 4.1-1 Erratum Add “the Blowdown Treatment Facility (BDTF) area,”

0


CTS-00459 4.1.2 4.1-4 Erratum Change “384 ac” to “400 ac”. 0

CTS-00459 4.2.1.1.5 4.2-3 Erratum Change “384 ac” to “400 ac”. 0

CTS-00619 4.2.1.2 4.2-4 Editorial correction

Change “cooling water“ to “makeup water and blowdown”.

0


Change “cooling water” to “makeup water and blowdown system”.

0


Change “cooling water” to “makeup water and blowdown system”.

0


Change “cooling” to “makeup”. 0


Change “cooling water system” to “CWS and UHS”.

0

4_2

Change ID No.


Reason for change


ERT/R


Change “cooling water system” and “raw water system” to “makeup water and blowdown system”, respectively.

0

CTS-00623 Table 4.2-1

4.2-14 Erratum Change population count from “8186” to “6354” and average daily consumption from “0.383” to “0.362”.

0

CTS-00459 4.3.1 4.3-2 Erratum Change “384 ac” to “400 ac”.

CTS-00651 4.3.1 4.3-2 Update Change acreages on page 4.3-2 of ER that describe area of soil disturbed during construction to agree with the new survey of the BDTF.

0

SOC-11 4.4.2.3 4.4-14 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Updated with current information and revised text to discuss public safety and medical services for Hood and Somervell counties.

1


Delete paragraph to revise text to discuss public safety and medical services for Hood and Somervell counties.

1

SOC-11 4.4.4 4.4-20 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Revised to include 2 new reference notations.

1

SOC-03 List of Tables

4-v Erratum Changed title of Table 4.4-2 from “Total Number of Workers per Year for Construction of CPNPP Units 3 and 4” to “Total Number of On-site Workforce per Year for Construction of CPNPP Units 3 and 4”

2

SOC-03 List of Figures

4-vi Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Added figure 4.4-1 to show the CPNPP total project staffing

2


Revised paragraph to include a discussion of the on site workforce for each quarter.

2

4_3

Change ID No.


Reason for change


ERT/R

SOC-03 4.4.1.1 4.4-1 Errata Changed “4300” to “5201 in 2014” Added “construction” before “workforce”

2


Revised paragraph to include on site peak workforce.

2

SOC-03 4.4.1.3 4.4-3 Errata Changed “2150” to “2601” and “4300” to “5201”

2

SOC-03 4.4.1.3 4.4-4 Erratum Changed “4300” to “4395” Changed “2150” to “2601”

2

SOC-03MET-07

4.4.1.5.3 4.4-8 Errata Changed “2150” to “2601” Replaced “4300 construction workers” with “5201 total on-site workers” Changed “4300” to “4953”

2

MET-07 4.4.1.6 4.4-8 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Revised subsection to discuss air quality impacts from vehicle emissions.

2


Revised subsection to address additional air quality impacts.

2


Revised subsection to describe the process to be used to develop and communicate air permit compliance monitoring requirements during construction.

2

SOC-03 4.4.2.1 4.4-10 4.4-11

Increaseinformation as discussed with the NRC.

Revised subsection to provide discussions based on new and updated construction workforce populations for the proposed units.

2


Added “six counties of the” before economic region to clarify the number of counties.

2

SOC-06 4.4.2.2 4.4-11 Editorial Correction

Changed Table 5.8-1 to Table 5.8-2

2

SOC-06 4.4.2.2 4.4-11 Increase information as discussed with

Revised subsection to include basis for assumptions.

2

4_4

Change ID No.


Reason for change


ERT/R

the NRC.


Revised subsection to include basis for assumptions.

Added “economic” in front of “the region”

2

SOC-07 4.4.2.2.1 4.4-12 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Revised subsection to provide additional information and to provide clarification.

2


Added sentence “During the construction period, ad valoren taxes, sales and use taxes, and property taxes increase in the economic region.”Added “economic” in front of “region”

2

MET-07 4.4.4 4.4-20 4.4-21

Increaseinformation as discussed with the NRC

Added four new reference notations as a result of revisions to subsections 4.4.1.6.

2

SOC-03 Table 4.4-2

4.4-24 Increase information as discussed with the NRC

Changed the title from “Total Number of Workers per Year for Construction of CPNPP Units 3 and 4” to “Total Number of On-site Workforce per Year for Construction of CPNPP Units 3 and 4”

Expanded the table to include Construction and Operation and revised total worker numbers

2

SOC-03 Figure 4.4-1

Increase information as discussed with the NRC

Added table to show total project staffing.

2

4-v

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title

4.2-1 Lake Granbury Municipal Water Systems

4.4-1 Percent of Total Workforce by Craft for Construction of CPNPP Units 3 and 4

4.4-2 Total Number of WorkersOn-site Workforce per Year for Construction of CPNPP Units 3 and 4

4.4-3 Craft Labor Availability 2004 - 2014

4.5-1 Protected Area Fence TLD Measurements

4.5-2 2006 CPNPP Units 1 and 2 Gaseous Effluents

4.5-3 Atmospheric Dispersion and Deposition

4.5-4 Annual Construction Worker Dose

4.5-5 Construction Worker Dose Comparison to 10 CFR 20.1301 Criteria

4.5-6 Comparison of Construction Worker Dose to 40 CFR 190 Criteria

4.5-7 Comparison of Construction Worker Dose to 10 CFR 50 Appendix I Criteria

4.6-1 Summary of Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts during Construction

4.7-1 Potential Cumulative Impacts from Construction Activities

SOC-03

4-vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title

4.1-1 Detailed Site Plot Plan with Construction Laydown Areas

4.2-1 CPNPP Units 3 and 4 Construction Plan and Adjacent Water Bodies

4.2-2 CPNPP Lake Granbury Intake and Discharge Locations

4.3-1 Ecological Cover Types Within Construction Footprint of CPNPP

4.4-1 CPNPP Total Project Staffing

4.7-1 Past and Present Projects Within a 50-Mi Radius of the CPNPP Site

SOC-03

4.4-1

4.4 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

The discussion of socioeconomic impacts is divided into three sections. Subsection 4.4.1describes physical impacts of station construction on the community. Subsection 4.4.2 describes the social and economic impacts of station construction on the surrounding region. Subsection 4.4.3 describes environmental justice impacts as a result of site construction.

4.4.1 PHYSICAL IMPACTS

Construction activities can cause temporary localized physical impacts to off-site structures, roads, air quality, noise, or aesthetics. Many of these impacts can directly or indirectly affect humans near the CPNPP site. As discussed in Subsection 2.5.1, the area near the site is rural, with a low population density. As illustrated in Table 2.5-1, the 2007 projected population within five mi is only 3530 individuals. This is a population density of 45 people per sq mi. This section addresses potential construction impacts that may affect people, buildings, roads, aesthetics, and recreational opportunities.

4.4.1.1 Construction Activities

A detailed description of the CPNPP Units 3 and 4 site and vicinity is provided in Sections 2.1and 2.2. Within the CPNPP site boundary, rehabilitation of existing buildings and roads is necessary as well as the construction of new buildings.

Construction requires a variety of skilled and nonskilled labor. Table 4.4-1 shows the type of laborers employed for the project based on the percentage of total hours each is expected to contribute. Table 4.4-2 shows the number of workers employed for each year of the construction schedule. Figure 4.4-1 shows the total number of workers on-site for each quarter of the project.The estimated number of constructiontotal workers on-site rises to a peak of 43005201 in 2014and then diminishes over the next three years. Completion of the construction phase is discussed in Table 1.1-1. It is assumed that 70 percent of the construction workforce in-migrates to the region. The migration numbers are assumed based on the availability of craft labor as discussed in Subsection 4.4.2.1. Due to the temporary nature of construction work, many construction workers on large projects such as power plant construction move throughout the country to job sites and do not relocate their families for each job. Thus it is assumed that only 25 percent of the construction workforce for CPNPP choose to move their families to the region.

As shown in Table 2.5-1, the 2007 projected permanent population for the area within 10 mi is 32,451. Population distribution details are given in Subsection 2.5.1.

People who could be vulnerable to noise, fugitive dust, and gaseous emissions resulting from construction activities at the plant are listed below in order of most vulnerable to least vulnerable:

• Construction workers and personnel working on-site.

• People working or living immediately adjacent to the site.

• Transient populations such as temporary employees, recreational visitors, and tourists.

SOC-03

SOC-03

4.4-3

As stated in Section 2.1, a railroad spur enters the site on its western boundary and extends to the area south of the new reactor locations as illustrated in Figure 1.1-2. The railroad spur does not need to be upgraded to support equipment delivery. The length of the track on-site is expected to be reduced to allow for the new reactors. Because the rail line spur outside the site boundary makes use of a pre-existing ROW that is already zoned for industrial use and has already been disturbed, construction impacts are expected to be SMALL and no mitigation is necessary.

Plant construction at CPNPP results in an increase in traffic on local roads. Subsection 4.1.1describes the transport of construction materials and workforce to the site by public roads. Figure2.5-5 illustrates the road and highway systems of both Hood and Somervell counties. Both construction workers and truck deliveries access the site via FM 56 (Subsection 2.5.2.2). FM 56 passes to the west of the site, connecting FM 51 to U.S. Highway 67 (US 67). FM 56 is a two-lane highway and has turn lanes near the plant entrance.

As discussed in Subsection 2.5.2.2.3, averaged annual daily traffic (AADT) counts in 2004 on FM 56 indicate that 3230 vehicles use FM 56 to the north of the plant entrance while 3020 vehicles use FM 56 to the south of the entrance. The AADT counts indicate that approximately 11,780 vehicles travel on US 67 just east of the intersection with FM 56, and 11,730 vehicles travel on US 67 to the west of the intersection. The AADT counts indicate that 9560 vehicles travel on US 377 just east of the intersection with FM 56, while 9750 travel on US 377 to the west of the intersection (TxDOT 2004).

According to the Highway Capacity Manual, the capacity of a two-lane highway is 1700 vehicles per hour for each direction of travel. The capacity is nearly independent of the directional distribution of the traffic on the facility, except that for extended lengths of two-lane highway, the capacity does not exceed 3200 vehicles per hour for both directions of travel combined (TRB2000).

Construction is expected to take place during a single shift, with the possibility of night testing or the addition of another shift, as warranted. A conservative estimate of 100 daily truck deliveries is assumed for this analysis, with all deliveries occurring during daytime hours. The total number of construction workers during peak construction is 4300on-site at peak is 5201 (4953 constructionworkers plus 248 operations workers).

A traffic study for the CPNPP site was conducted in 1987 during the construction of CPNPP Units 1 and 2 when approximately 8694 persons were employed on-site. The study found an auto-utilization factor of 2.34 persons/vehicle for vehicles entering the site, including factors such as absenteeism and late arrivals. The study also found a higher incidence of carpooling among construction workers (DeShazo, Starek & Tang 1987). Thus a conservative estimate is that carpooling occurs among the construction workforce resulting in an average of two people per vehicle, or 21502601 (43005201 workers at peak divided by two) vehicles entering or leaving the site at peak times. This is much less than the 3710 vehicles found in the 1987 traffic study (DeShazo, Starek & Tang 1987). Also, after the completion of the 1987 traffic study, improvements in traffic signals, widened lanes, turn lanes, and additional signage were made in the immediate area to handle the large volume of traffic.

SOC-03

SOC-03

4.4-4

Construction workers and deliveries have a minimal impact on the interstate and larger state highways in the region as the additional influx of drivers is still within the design of the roadway. Impact on area transportation resources generally decreases with increased distance from the site as varied routes are taken by individual vehicles.

Although the peak construction workforce is expected to be 43004953, only 21502601 vehicles are expected to be used to transport the workers to and from the CPNPP site due to carpooling. This is less than the demand that was placed on the local two-lane state and county highways and farm to market roads during the construction of Units 1 and 2. With the additional improvements that have been made to the roads since that time, the impact of the construction workers and delivery trucks on local roads, primarily FM 56, is expected to be SMALL within the vicinity of the site.

4.4.1.4 Impacts to Aesthetics

The locations of parks and reservoirs in the vicinity and region are described in Subsections2.2.1.2 and 2.2.3. Visual access to the construction of the units is expected to be mainly plant employees and those residents across the reservoir, because further visual effects are obstructed due to the hilly nature of the area. Section 3.1 describes construction materials which ultimately lessen the visual impact of the CPNPP on the vicinity.

Federal regulations require that any temporary or permanent structure, including all accompaniments, that exceeds an overall height of 200 ft above ground level be appropriately marked with lighting. The tallest structures on-site during the construction period are expected to be the crane used for construction of the facilities. As these structures primarily consist of iron framework, they carry a lower visual weight than the reactor domes, which are the most visible structures on-site as the CPNPP nears completion.

The tallest buildings on-site during construction are the reactor domes of CPNPP Units 1 and 2. As the viewshed analysis in Subsection 2.2.1 states, CPNPP Units 1 and 2 have reactor domes that are 266 ft high. With CPNPP Unit 1 and Unit 2 in operation since 1990 and 1993, respectively, any affect on local viewsheds has already occurred. According to viewshed analysis, the reactor domes are visible from Dinosaur Valley State Park and Oakdale Park. Because the visual effects are inversely proportional to distance, the effects of CPNPP Units 1 and 2 on most other parks in the region are minimal.

Subsection 2.2.1 discusses the visual effect of the reactor domes as a function of distance and angle of vision occupied by the domes. As the distance from the domes increases, the angle of vision occupied by the domes decreases significantly. Most of the parks in the region are located more than 14 mi from the site. Although the reactor domes may be visible at that distance, they occupy less than 1 degree of vision.

The impact of construction at the CPNPP site on aesthetics and recreational opportunities is expected to be SMALL and requires no mitigation. Further discussion on the impact to recreational activities is discussed in Subsection 4.4.2.6.

SOC-03

4.4-8

Construction is expected to take place during a single shift, with the possibility of night testing or the addition of another shift, as warranted. Much of the traffic during the construction period would be at the beginning and end of the work shift. Peak-hour traffic noise would increase along the access road. Traffic noise during the peak hours could be noticeable at the nearby residences. Heavy truck traffic would be the most bothersome and could approach levels of 70 – 90 dBA at 50 ft from the road. A conservative estimate of 100 daily truck deliveries is assumed for this analysis, with all deliveries occurring during daytime hours.

Subsection 4.4.1.3 describes the results of a traffic study for the CPNPP site during the construction of CPNPP Units 1 and 2 in 1987 when approximately 8694 persons were employed on-site. Based on this study, a conservative estimate is that there are 21502601 vehicles entering or leaving the site at peak times, based on 4300 construction employees5201 total on-site workers. This is much less than the 3710 vehicles found in the 1987 traffic study (DeShazo, Starek & Tang 1987). Since the 1987 traffic study, improvements in traffic signals, widened lanes, turn lanes, and additional signage were made in the immediate area to handle the large volume of traffic.

Although the peak construction workforce is expected to be 49534300, the noise impacts from construction workers and deliveries utilizing smaller two-lane state and county highways and farm to market roads, primarily FM 56, are expected to be SMALL to MODERATE due to their intermittent and temporary nature. Potential mitigation measures include encouraging carpooling, reducing speed limits and staggering shifts to avoid traditional traffic congestion time periods.

4.4.1.5.4 Noise due to Railroad Spur Construction

As detailed in Section 2.2, a railroad spur enters the site on its western boundary and extends to the area just south of the new reactor locations. The railroad spur does not need to be upgraded to support equipment delivery and the pre-existing ROW is zoned for industrial use, therefore construction impacts are expected to be SMALL.

4.4.1.6 Impacts to Air Quality

Regional air quality, including EPA air quality standards, is discussed in Subsection 2.7.1.2.7.Areas having air quality that is worse than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are designated by the EPA as non-attainment areas. The CPNPP is not located in a non-attainment area. The nearest non-attainment area to CPNPP is Johnson County, which is a non-attainment area under the 8-hour ozone standard (EPA 2007).

Temporary and minor impacts to local ambient air quality could occur as a result of normal construction activities. Fugitive dust and fine particulate matter (PM) emissions, including those less than PM10 in size, are generated during earth-moving and material-handling activities. Construction equipment and off-site vehicles used for hauling debris, equipment, and supplies also produce emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions are generated by the use of fuel in vehicles atthe rate of 19.4 lb/gal of gasoline or 22.2 lb/gal of diesel (EPA 2009). Construction vehicles also discharge Sulfur dioxide. The EPA’s Non-road Diesel Rule requires non-road equipment to use low-sulfur diesel fuel with a 500 ppm sulfur maximum (EPA 2007b).The pollutants of primary concern include PM10 fugitive dust, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, carbon

SOC-03MET-07

SOC-03

MET-07

4.4-9

monoxide, and to a lesser extent, sulfur dioxides. Variables affecting construction emissions; e.g., type of construction vehicles, timing and phasing of construction activities, and haul routes, cannot be accurately determined until the project is initiated. Actual construction-related emissions cannot be effectively quantified before the project begins. General estimates are available, however, and the impacts on air quality can be minimized by compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations that govern construction activities and emissions from construction vehicles (EPA 1985).

Additional air quality impacts are expected from a concrete batch plant operating duringconstruction. A concrete batch plant requires an air permit to operate and normally the operator or contractor is required to provide that permit. The air quality impact from the concrete batch plant is particulates, which are a concern when loading dry concrete and aggregate into the system. Once water is added into the drum mix, particulates are no longer emitted. Air quality impacts from the concrete batch plant operation are minimal using particulate controls that are required by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) under Texas Administrative Code (TCEQ 2008). The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates an average of 460,000 cubic yard of concrete is necessary for nuclear power plant construction. This number was derived based on four different reactor models (NEI 2007). An estimated potential to emit particulate at 10 microns (PM10) would be 53 tons, which would qualify the concrete batch plant as a Minor Source under EPA regulations. Because the concrete batch plant is considered a Minor Source, the off-site air quality impact is projected to be SMALL.

Specific mitigation measures to control fugitive dust are identified in a dust control plan, or similar document, prepared prior to project construction. These mitigation measures could include any or all of the following:

• Stabilize construction roads and spoil piles.

• Limit speeds on unpaved construction roads.

• Routinely water unpaved construction roads to control dust.

• Perform housekeeping; e.g., remove dirt spilled onto paved roads.

• Cover haul trucks when loaded or unloaded.

• Minimize material handling; e.g., drop heights, double handling.

• Cease grading and excavation activities during high winds and during extreme air pollution episodes.

• Phase grading to minimize the area of disturbed soils.

• Use temporary or permanent vegetation on road medians and slopes.

A construction air monitoring compliance program is developed by evaluating the permits andassociated requirements to assess where monitoring for compliance is required or prudent as a best practice. Typical construction monitoring methods are visual or consist of sampling via

MET-07

MET-09

4.4-10

technicians or automated systems. Onsite construction procedures are developed to capture thepermit and monitoring compliance requirements to ensure they are consistently implemented. Training is developed for the onsite workforce, and applicable personnel receive training and qualification certification prior to mornitoring for compliance. Recurring training is developed and implemented as applicable and monitoring program effectiveness is assured through an audit process.

While emissions from construction activities and equipment are unavoidable, a mitigation plan minimizes impacts to local ambient air quality, and the nuisance impacts to the public in proximity to the project. A possible mitigation plan includes:

• Perform proper maintenance of construction vehicles to maximize efficiency and minimize emissions.

Impacts to air quality from construction are SMALL with the above measures and do not warrant mitigation beyond these measures.

4.4.2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

This subsection evaluates the demographic, economic, infrastructure, and community impacts to the vicinity and region as a result of constructing two MHI US-APWR reactors at the CPNPP site. The evaluation assesses impacts of construction-related activities and an in-migrating construction workforce on population, regional labor, tax revenues, infrastructure and community services, housing, education, and recreational activities within the vicinity and region.

4.4.2.1 Demography

Population estimates and projections for the region are discussed in Subsection 2.5.1.

Industry, heavy construction, and unemployment numbers are discussed in Subsection 2.5.2.1.The demand for workers is high in the region, with unemployment levels at approximately five percent. The expansion of drilling operations in the Barnett Shale area has increased the number of jobs in the region substantially.

Table 4.4-3 shows the number of people skilled in the various types of craft labor required for CPNPP Units 3 and 4 construction for the North Central and Tarrant WDAs. Subsection 2.5.2.1describes the counties located in each WDA. The levels are shown for 2004 as well as the projected levels for 2014. The crafts with the most plentiful laborers in the two WDAs are construction laborers followed by carpenters and electricians. The crafts with the least numbers are millwrights, structural ironworkers, and boilermakers. According to the Construction LaborForcast, a shortages of skilled workers is expected in 2012 in the United States, with very high shortages of boilermakers, carpenters, cement masons, and pipefitters and high shortages of ironworkers, electricians, and sheet metal workers. Using the projected 2014 numbers, the construction of CPNPP Units 3 and 4 requires almost 10 percent of the boilermakers, 43 percent of the millwrights, and 62 percent of the structural ironworkers. It is very unlikely that such high percentages of skilled craftsmen are available for the project. Also, many types of craft labor are location-dependent and the workers must travel from site to site, sometimes across the country.

MET-09

SOC-03

4.4-11

Thus, a large number of workers are expected to come from the state of Texas or other placesoutside the regionoutside the region and out of the state of Texas.

A study of nuclear power plants found that up to 30 percent of the construction workers came from the local area. The cases with the largest share of local workers occurred when there was rapid population growth in the area and large indigenous construction work forces (Pijawka and Chalmers 1983). Hood and Somervell counties are experiencing rapid population growth along with the Fort Worth metropolitan area. In addition, the North Central and Tarrant WDAs are forecast to have over 17,000 construction laborers by 2014. Thus, it is expected that the CPNPP region has a similarly large share of local workers for the project. For this analysis it is assumed that 30 percent of the required workers come from inside the region while 70 percent come from outside the region.

During peak construction, approximately in the year 2015towards the end of 2014, there are expected to be 43004953 construction workers on-site in addition to 248 operations workers as shown on Figure 4.4-1. Some of the different trade skills represented in the labor pool include electrical workers, welders, pipe fitters, etc. To ensure that the necessary labor pool is available, as the demand for workers increases, construction companies recruit employees from local technical school programs and work with school administrators to build up curriculum in the necessary labor trade areas. National labor trade union organizers, such as the American Federation of Labor, have made it a high priority to train new entrants in the construction industry as the need for labor ramps up. In addition, local recruiting of craft personnel, supplemental skills training, attractive compensation packages, and use of specialty contractors are expected to mitigate competition for craft workers between industries.

The total labor force in the six countries of the economic region in 2006 is 974,824, with 48,965 unemployed (Table 2.5-13). The economic region saw an increase of 4.3 percent in the construction sector from 2001 2006, bringing total employment levels to 73,455 people. Table 2.5-10 contains the distribution of labor by industry for the six counties in the economic region. The North Central Workforce Development Area (Collin, Denton, Ellis, Erath, Hood, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Navarro, Palo Pinto, Parker, Rockwell, Somervell, and Wise counties) is predicting an increase in heavy construction workers of 19.4 percent by 2012, while the Tarrant County Workforce Development Area is predicting a 13.4 percent increase in workers.

It is assumed that 30 percent of the construction workforce comes from within the existing local/regional industry, and the other 70 percent migrate into the region. It is assumed that onlyTtwenty-five percent of the construction workers that in-migrate bring a family. Because construction jobs such as CPNPP Units 3 and 4 only provide employment for a few years, it is assumed many construction workers choose not to relocate their families. It is further assumed that a portion of the construction workers do not have families. In 2000, the average family size in the United States was 3.18 people. This family size was multiplied by the 867 workers expected to bring their families, resulting in 3467 people. When added to the in-migrating workers without families, the total population increase due to the in-migrating construction workforce is 6067. At peak construction, 248 operations workers will also be on-site. As discussed in Subsection 5.8.2.1, it is assumed that 50 percent of operations workers in-migrate and that all in-migrating operations workers bring their families. Using the same family size, the 124 in-migrating operations workers and their families increase the population in the area by 496 people. Thus, the total population increase at peak construction is 6563 people.

SOC-03

SOC-03

SOC-03

SOC-03

4.4-12

Based on worker settlement pattern of the operations workers for CPNPP Units 1 and 2discussed in Subsection 5.8.2.1, it is assumed that 42 percent of the total incoming workers settle in Hood County (2757 people), 21 percent in Somervell County (1378 people), 12 percent in Johnson County (788 people), 9 percent in Tarrant County (591 people), 6 percent in Erath County (394 people), and 5 percent in Bosque County (328 people). The remaining workers settle outside the economic region. Hood County has an estimated population of 49,906 people in 2014. The incoming workers increase the population by 5.5 percent. Somervell County has an estimated population of 8104 in 2014, so the population increases by 17 percent. In Johnson County, Cleburne has an estimated population of 34,486 which increases by 2.3 percent. Fort Worth in Tarrant County has an estimated population of 660,343 which increases by only 0.1 percent. This increase is sufficiently small that no impacts are expected in Tarrant County. Stephenville in Erath County has an estimated population in 2014 of 18,118 people and increases by 2.2 percent. Walnut Springs in Bosque County has an estimated population of 855 residents in 2014. The in-migrating workforce increases the population by 38 percent.To be conservative, an average household size of four was used to estimate the increase in population in the 50-mi region. With a construction workforce of 4300, the population within the region increases by 5268 people. In 2006, Somervell County and Hood County estimated populations were 7773 and 49,238, respectively (Census 2006). It is assumed that 50 percent settle in Somervell County and 50 percent settle in Hood County. Glen Rose offers a location closer to the site, but Granbury offers more amenities including, but not limited to, more schools, lakefront properties, and convenient shopping. The influx of construction workers and families would likely represent a 34-percent increase in population in Somervell County and a 5-percent increase in population in Hood County. Therefore, construction workers and their families represent a very small percent of the existing county population in Hood County, but a large percent of the county population of Somervell County.

During the construction period, an additional impact on area population occurs during refueling for CPNPP Units 1 and 2, when 800 – 1200 additional workers are required. Refueling for each unit occurs every 18 months and lasts for approximately 24 days. A refueling outage for CPNPPUnit 1 coincides with peak construction in 2014, bringing the total number of of workers on-site to approximately 6401 for a period of less than a month.

Because of the increase in population is distributed to the six counties of the economic regioninHood and Somervell counties, the impacts of plant construction on population are anticipated to be SMALL to MODERATE.

4.4.2.2 Economy

The characteristics of the region surrounding the CPNPP site, including industry, workforce, and unemployment are described in Subsection 2.5.2.1. The economic region of CPNPP is defined as the counties most likely to be affected by the construction and operation of CPNPP Units 3 and 4. The economic region was determined by the current residency patterns of CPNPP Units 1 and 2 operations workers as it is assumed the CPNPP Units 3 and 4 construction and operation workforce follows a similar settlement pattern. Table 5.8-21 shows the cities and counties where the CPNPP Units 1 and 2 workforce resides. Based on the residency patterns, the CPNPP Units 3 and 4 economic region was defined as Bosque, Erath, Hood, Johnson, Somervell, and Tarrant counties Within those counties, the cities of Cleburne, Fort Worth, Glen Rose, Granbury,Stephenville, Tolar, and Walnut Springs are most affected.

SOC-03

SOC-03

SOC-06

SOC-06

4.4-13

The in-migration of construction workers to the economic region affects the economy through the creation of new jobs and the increase in goods and services purchased. The U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics Division have provided a regional economic model that creates multipliers for industry jobs, earnings and expenditures.

The economic model used is the regional input-output modeling system (RIMS II). This model is based on benchmark national input/output multipliers, and incorporates buying and selling linkages among regional industries to create multipliers for both jobs and monetary expenditures (BEA 2005). The resulting multipliers were used to estimate the number of indirect jobs and expenditure of money in the economic region.

The peak number of construction workers onsite is 52014300, with 70 percent of the construction workers (30103467 workers) and 50 percent of the operation workers (124 workers) coming from outside the region. These 30103591 workers are the ones that have an impact on the economic region. The construction industry was selected from the RIMS II Multipliers in Table 1.5, resulting in a multiplier value of 1.48 (BEA 2005). This means for every new construction worker to the economic region, 0.48 indirect jobs are created. Thus, 30103467 construction workers results in 14451664 indirect jobs for a total of 44555131 jobs. For the operations workers, the power generation and supply multiplier was selected from the RIMS II Multipliers in Table 1.5, resulting in a multiplier value of 2.1 (BEA 2005). This means that for every new operations worker to the region, 1.1 indirect jobs are creating. Thus, 124 operations workers result in 136 indirect jobs. Because most indirect jobs are service -related and not highly specialized, it is assumed that most, if not all, indirect jobs are filled by the existing workforce within the 50-mieconomic region. Any permanent effects are discussed in Section 5.8.

In the year 2006, there were 48,965 people unemployed in the economic region (Table 2.5-13). Some or all of the indirect jobs created by the construction workforce are expected to be filled by unemployed workers in these counties. The money spent in the local area by these new workers, their families, and the newly employed persons in each county add to the economy of the economic region.

Annual construction labor and material expenditures for the construction period average $240 million a year, with a peak of approximately $516 million in 2014. The majority of annual expenditures would be spent in the economic region, with portions of those funds being spent outside the economic region. Based on the construction multiplier of 1,58 from the RIMS II multipliers in Table 1.5, for every dollar spent for construction expenditures, an additional 0.58 dollars is added to the economic region (BEA 2005). This result in approximately $139 million a year with $299 million at peak.

The increase in jobs in the economic region and the influx of money due to the construction expenditures are both beneficial in stimulating the economic region. It is likely new businesses open in the economic region to satisfy the demands of the in-migrating construction workers. Benefits include the creation of jobs, employee purchasing, and increase tax revenues. Thus the impact from plant construction is considered a MODERATE beneficial impact in the economic region.

When comparing the influx of construction workers with the relatively small population of thevicinity, the increase in expenditures and benefits is significant. When comparing the influx of

SOC-06

SOC-06

SOC-06

4.4-14

construction workers with the larger population of the region, the increase in expenditures andbenefits is proportionally smaller. Expenditures and benefits include the creation of jobs,employee purchasing, and increased tax revenues. Thus the impacts from plant construction employees are considered a MODERATE to LARGE beneficial impact in the vicinity and aSMALL beneficial impact in the region.

4.4.2.2.1 Regional Taxes and Political Structure

Regional taxes and the political structure within the CPNPP region are discussed in Subsection 2.5.2.3. Several types of taxes are generated by construction activities and purchases, and by site workforce expenditures. These taxes would include income taxes on corporate profits, wages, and salaries; sales and use taxes on corporate and employee purchases; real property taxes related to CPNPP; and personal property taxes associated with employees. However, if employees buy or rent existing properties, there is no increase in property tax revenues.

Luminant has agreements with Hood and Somervell counties to pay ad valorem taxes based on the current and new units. Table 2.5-17 shows CPNPP ad valorem taxes for CPNPP Units 1 and 2 for 2006. Based upon information from 2006, Luminant pays the majority of the ad valorem taxes to Glen Rose Independent School District (ISD) followed by Somervell County itself and the Somervell County Water District (TXU 2006b). Lesser amounts are paid to Grandbury ISD, Hood County, and Tolar ISD, while the remaining is paid to the Hood County Library District, the City of Glen Rose, and the town of Tolar (TXU 2006a)(TXU 2006b). Ad valorem taxes for Units 3 and 4 are expected to be similarily distributed to the existing arrangements and provide a substantial increase to the counties, cities, and districts that benefit.

Based on Table 2.5-16, tax revenues in Hood and Somervell counties have increased from 2002 20076. With continued population expansion as well as the addition of ad valorem taxes from

Units 3 and 4, tax revenues should continue to increase. However, ad valorem revenues for districts in Hood County are smaller than the revenues to Somervell County districts while at the same time an equal numberapproximately 40 percent of construction workers are expected to reside there based on current operations workforce settlement patterns. Thus ad valorem revenues for Hood County are not sufficient to mitigate the impact to public services in the county.

During the construction period, ad valorem taxes, sales and use taxes, and property taxes increase in the economic region. The increase in collected taxes is viewed as a benefit to the state and local jurisdictions in the economic region. It is anticipated that the impacts of construction on the economy of the region would be beneficial and SMALL. Conversely, the impact for Somervell County and to a lesser extent Hood County is anticipated to be LARGE and beneficial. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted.

4.4.2.3 Infrastructure and Community Services

Local public services affected by plant construction include education, transportation, public safety, social services, public utilities, tourism, and recreation (Subsection 2.5.2). In general, impacts to each of these services from plant construction are expected to be minimal. It is likely that the percentage of construction workers, accompanied by their families, moving into the region would concentrate in several established communities with well-developed public

SOC-06

SOC-07

SOC-07

SOC-07

SOC-07

4.4-23

4.4.3.4 Conclusion

Based upon the environmental justice analysis, impacts on minority and low-income populations within the vicinity and region are not disproportionate and thus are expected to be SMALL with no mitigation required.

4.4.4 REFERENCES

(BEA 2005) Bureau of Economic Analysis. RIMS II Multipliers (1997/2005). “Table 1.5 Total Multipliers for Output, Earnings, Employment, and Value Added by Detailed Industry.” Available URL: http://www.bea.gov/regional/rims/brfdesc.cfm. (Accessed October 3, 2007).

(Census 2006) U.S. Census. American FactFinder Population Finder. “Somervell County, Texas and Hood County, Texas.” http://factfinder.census.gov. (Accessed September 17, 2007).

(EPA 1985) U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol. I, Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 11.2 "Construction Operations", AP-42, Fourth Ed. September 1985.

(EPA 2007) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Green Book. “Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants: Texas.” http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html. (Accessed September 17, 2007).

(EPA 2007) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Nonroad Diesel Equipment.” Available URL:http://www.epa.gov/nonread-diesel/. Accessed April 8, 2009.

(EPA 2007) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Overview: Pollutants and Programs. “Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel.” Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05001.htm. Accessed April 7, 2009.

(Executive Order 12898) Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 32, p. 7629, Washington, D.C., February 16, 1994.

(NAR 2007) National Association of Realtors. “Available properties in Granbury and Glen Rose, Texas.” Available URL: http://www.realtor.com. (Accessed October 4, 2007).

(NEI 2007) Nuclear Energy Institute. “What’s Needed to Build a Reactor.” Nuclear Energy Insight.August/September 2007.

(NEPA 1969) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 41 USC 4321 et seq. http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm. (Accessed October 27, 2007).

(TxDOT 2004) Texas Department of Transportation. “2004 Traffic Map, General Highway Maps: Somervell and Hood Counties, Texas.”

MET-07

MET-07

4.4-24

(BJS 2003) Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Law Enforcement Management and AdministrativeStatistics: Local Police Departments, 2003." Available URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/lpd03.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2009.

(Senter 2009) Senter, Wayne. Port Orchard Independent. South Kitsap Fire and Rescue Chief."Even in Lean Times, Safety has to be Our First Consideration." Available URL: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/kitsap/poi/opinion/38164499.html. Accessed February 5, 2009.

(Lake Granbury Medical Center 2007) Lake Granbury Medical Center. “About Us.” http://www.lakegranburymedicalcenter.com/body.cfm?id=13. (Accessed March 9, 2007).

(TRB 2000) Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. The National Academies. Washington, D.C., 2000.

(SCWD 2007) Somervell County Water District. “Wheeler Branch Reservoir Information.” Available URL: http://clients.freese.com/somervell/Geninfo/Statistics.htm. (Accessed September 18, 2007).

(TXU 2006a) TXU Generation Company. “Ad Valorem Tax Tracking Report: Hood County.” (May 3, 2007).

(TXU 2006b) TXU Generation Company. “Ad Valorem Tax Tracking Report: Somervell County.” (May 3, 2007).

(TCEQ 2007a) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. “Water System Data Sheet: Hood County Public Water Systems.” Available URL: http://www3.tceq.state.tx.us/iwud/dist/index.cfm. (Accessed March 22, 2007).

(TCEQ 2007b) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. “Water System Data Sheet Report: City of Glen Rose.” Available URL: http://www3.tceq.state.tx.us/iwud/dist/index.cfm. (Accessed March 22, 2007).

(TCEQ 2008) Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. “Air Quality Standard Permit forConcrete Batch Plants.” Available URL: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/air/newsourcereview/mechanical/cbp.html. Accessed April 7, 2009.

(DeShazo, Starek & Tang 1987) DeShazo, Starek & Tang, Inc. "Transportation and Traffic Engineering Study for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station." Prepared for Texas Utilities Generating Company. October 22, 1987.

(US HUD 1996) United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 24 CFR Part 51.103 Criteria and Standards, March 26, 1996.

(USDOT 2006) United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Effective Noise Control During Night Time Construction, March 7, 2006

SOC-11

SOC-11

MET-07

4.4-24

TABLE 4.4-2TOTAL NUMBER OF ON-SITE WORKFORCEWORKERS PER YEAR FOR

CONSTRUCTION OF CPNPP UNITS 3 AND 4

Year Construction Operation Total Workers

2008 0 22 22

2009 0 60 14060

2010 119 76 270195

2011 621 92 385713

2012 886 168 7261054

2013 2423 213 23122636

2014 4953 248 38835201

2015 3739 378 40854117

2016 598 457 31391055

2017 0 494 1214494

2018 0 464 102464

2019 0 412 412

SOC-03

SOC-03

SOC-03

Chapter 5

5_1


Change ID No.



ERT/R


5-xxii Editorial correction Change “MPT Main Power Transformer” to “MT Main Transformer”.

0

CTS-00624 5.1.3.1.4 5.1-5 Erratum Change “one mi” to “two mi”. 0

CTS-00624 5.1.3.1.4 5.1-5 Editorial correction Change “site boundary” to “property boundaries”.

0

CTS-00625 5.1.2 5.1-2 Erratum Change number of 345-kV transmission lines from “five” to “four”.

0

CTS-00627 5.2.3.5 5.2-16 Editorial correction Change the discussion regarding the cells and cubicles.

0

CTS-00628 Table 5.3-3 5.3-20 Editorial correction Change the circulating water flow/tower and drift rate per tower numbers.

0

CTS-00629 Table 5.4-16 5.4-42 Erratum Change “rad” to “person-rad”. 0

MET-13 5.3.1 5.3-11 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Add “Six years of site meteorological data (2001 – 2006) were also used in the analysis.

1

SOC-11 5.8.2.3.1.2 5.8-11 and5.8-12

Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Update with current information and revise text to discuss public safety and medical services for Hood and Somervell counties. Update reference citation from TDPS 2004 to TDPS 2006

1


Update reference notation (TDPS 2004) information to (TDPS 2006) information.

1

5_2

Change ID No.



ERT/R

SOC-04 5.8.1.1 5.8-1 Errata Changed “550” to “494” Changed “1550” to “1494” Added “in 2018” Added sentence to clarify the number of workers after one year.

2

SOC-04 5.8.1.3 5.8-2 Editorial corrections Removed “or Texas Stae Highway 144 (SH 144)” Changed “SH 144 to Texas State Highway 144”

2

SOC-04 5.8.1.3 5.8-2 5.8-7

Errata Changed “1550” to “1494” Changed “total of 1550” to “peak total of 1494”

2

SOC-04 5.8.2.1 5.8-8 5.8-9


Revised subsection to address the operation workforce assumptions.

2

SOC-04 5.8.2.1 5.8-9 Erratum Changed “4300” to “4953” 2

SOC-06 5.8.2.2 5.8-9 5.8-10


Revised subsection to discuss workforce economics.

2


Removed “(Table 2.5-13)” Replaced “0.64” with “0.32”

2

SOC-07 5.8.2.2.1 5.8-11 Editorial correction Changed “operation” to “operational”

2

SOC-07 5.8.2.2.1 5.8-11 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Revised paragraph to include wage information.

2


Added two reference notationsUpdated (TDPS 2004) to (TDPS 2006) information.

2

5.8-10

5.8.2.2 Economy

The impacts of the new units’ operation on the local and regional economy depend on the economic region’s current and projected economy and population. As discussed in Subsection2.5.2.1, the economic region consists of those counties most likely to be affected by the construction and operation of CPNPP Units 3 and 4. Based on the distribution of the operations workers for CPNPP Units 1 and 2, those counties are Bosque, Erath, Hood, Johnson, Somervell, and Tarrant, counties. During the time period when operational workers move into the vicinity andeconomic region, CPNPP site construction is concluding. In this case, the “bust effect” is the result of construction workers leaving the vicinityeconomic region. Because these workers, even those who commute, partake to some degree in vicinity goods and services in the economic region, certain services experience loss of economic growth. The impact is caused by a decrease of use during the population recovery period. Sales, personal income, and tax revenues may experience a decline.

The permanent operational workers moving into the vicinity as construction decreases canpartially offset this bust. Also, an influx of temporary workers to service refueling outages helps toalleviate economic loss. The region does not experience the same level of impact as localcommunities due to the bust effect because the number of construction workers leaving does notrepresent a significant percentage of the region’s total population.According to Subsection5.8.2.1, the economic region as a whole does not experience the bust effect. However, the total population of Hood and Somervell counties decreases after the peak construction period. HoodCounty is projected to recover peak construction population levels by 2019 due to populationgrowth and the operations workers. Somervell County is projected to recover peak constructionlevels by 2028.

Additional jobs in the region result from the multiplier effect attributable to the new operations workforce. In the multiplier effect, each dollar spent on goods and services by an operational worker becomes income to the recipient who saves some but re-spends the remainder. The recipients’ re-spending becomes income to others, who in turn save part and re-spend the remainder. The number of times the final increase in consumption exceeds the initial dollar spent is called the “multiplier.” The Regional Economic Analysis Division of the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides multipliers for industry jobs and earnings. The economic model, Regional Input-output Modeling System (RIMS II), incorporates buying and selling linkages among regional industries and was used to estimate the impact of new nuclear plant-related expenditure of money in the region of interest. The wages and salaries of the operating workforce have a multiplier effect that could result in an increase in business activity, particularly in the retail and service industries. Based on the power generation and supply multiplier of the RIMS II Table 1.5 (Table 2.5-13), for every dollar of income for operational plant employees, an additional 0.640.32 cents is added to the regional economy (BEA 2005).

Using the same category, for every operations job at Units 3 and 4, an estimated 1.1 jobs are created in the 50-mieconomic region, which means that 550 direct jobsthe 123 in-migratingworkers at the start of operations result in an additional 605135 indirect jobs for a total of approximately 1155258 new jobs in the economic region. Because most indirect jobs are service-related and not highly specialized, it is assumed that most, if not all, indirect jobs are filled by the existing workforce (Table 2.5-13).

SOC-06

SOC-06

SOC-07

SOC-06

SOC-06

Revision: 05.8-18

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4COL Application

Part 3 - Environmental Report

(EO 1994) Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. Federal Register. Vol. 59. No. 32. p. 7629. Washington, D.C., February 16, 1994.

(Lake Granbury Medical Center 2007) Lake Granbury Medical Center. About Us. http://www.lakegranburymedicalcenter.com/body.cfm?id=13. Accessed March 9, 2007.

(NPI 2009) Nuclear Power Institute. “About NPI.” Available URL: http://www.nuclearpowerinstitute.org/index.php/about. Accessed February 4, 2009.

(Broemmel, Clark, and Nielsen 2007) Broemmel, J., T. Clark, and S. Nielsen. July-August 2007. Military Review. “The Surge Can Succeed.” Military Review, pp. 110-112.

(TDPS 20064) Texas Department of Public Safety. The Texas Crime Report for 20064: Law Enforcement Personnel. Available URL: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/064/cit064ch7.pdf. Accessed March 928, 20097.

(TRB 2000) Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. The National Academies. Washington, D.C.

(TxDOT 2004) Texas Department of Transportation. 2004 Traffic Map, General Highway Maps: Somervell and Hood Counties, Texas.

(TJC 2008) Tyler Junior College. “Luminant Academy Open House Set March 26.” AvailableURL: http://www.tjc.edu/news/article.asp?message_id=572. Accessed February 4, 2009.

(US Census 2000a) U.S. Census Bureau. American FactFinder. Hood County Housing. http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed on March 15, 2007.

(US Census 2000b) U.S. Census Bureau. American FactFinder. Somervell County Housing. http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed March 15, 2007.

(US HUD 1996) United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 24 CFR Part 51.103 Criteria and Standards, March 26, 1996.

(SCWD 2008) Somervell County Water District. “Phase I - Wheeler Branch Dam and Paluxy River Channel.” http://scwd.us/?page_id=9. Accessed July 25, 2008.

SOC-07

SOC-11

SOC-07

SOC-07

Chapter 6

6_1


Change ID No.



ERT/R


6-xvi Editorial correction Change “MPT Main Power Transformer” to “MT Main Transformer”.

0

CTS-00630 6.3.1.1 6.3-2 Editorial correction Change “SWS” to “ESWS” 0

CTS-00631 6.5.1 6.5-2 Editorial correction Remove “nonradioactive”. 0

CTS-00631 6.5.1 6.5-2 Editorial correction Change “service water” to “essential service water”

0

CTS-00499 6.7 6.7-3 Editorial correction Add information for current results regarding humidity date, and remove discussions for future additions.

0

CTS-00499 6.7 6.7-3 Editorial correction Clean up to match ER 6.4.1 wording for RH instrumentation.

0

Chapter 7

7_1


Change ID No.



ERT/R


7-xvii Editorial correction Change “MPT Main Power Transformer” to “MT Main Transformer”.

0

CTS-00470 7.2 7.2-7 Erratum Change “5.87 x 10-1” to “1.15”.

0

Chapter 8

8_1


Change ID No.


Reason for change Change Summary Rev. of ER T/R



0

NP-03 8.1 8.1-6 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Revised text to address why the plants are not specifically discussed within the context of the need for power analysis.

1

NP-05 8.1 8.1-6


Revised text to discuss the ERCOT assumptions driving generation capacity.

1

NP-09 NP-13

8.4.1 8.4-1 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Revised text to clarify that market participants determine how and when to retire or build new capacity.

1

NP-12 8.1 8.1-6 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Revised text to explain that market forces determine how to meet the forecast load.

1

NP-18 8.3.1 8.3-1 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Added a “pointer” to the definition of “mothballed capacity.”

1


Revised text to clarify how ERCOT does their analysis.

1


Revised text to provide information regarding mothballed generating capacity.

1


Revised text to address why the plants are not specifically discussed within the context of the need for power analysis and at specific points in time, given that the plants would not come on line until about 10 years in the future.

1


Revised text to clarify how ERCOT does their analysis.

1

8_2

Change ID No.


Reason for change Change Summary Rev. of ER T/R


Expands the discussion of reserve margin.

1


Expanded the discussion of reserve margin to indicate the decision to increase the number of plants rests with the market participants.

1


Revise text to discuss the 2007 ERCOT assessment and other information that has become available after the 2007 reference. Added subsection 8.4.5 entitled “ERCOT Update”

1


Revise references for the increased information.

1

NP-14 Table 8.4-1 8.4-8 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Revised table to include the load forecast and reserve margin.

1

Chapter 9

9_1


Change ID No.


Reason for change


ERT/R


9-xx Editorial correction


0

CTS-00632 9.2 9.2-9 Erratum Change “peak” to “units”. 0

CTS-00687 9.3.4.1.3.2 9.3-14 Update the proprietary status of information

Remove (proprietary) 1

CTS-00688 9.3 9.3-30 Update the proprietary status of information

Remove “Attachment proprietary information” and add “Luminant Nuclear Power Plant Siting Report, February 09, 2009, with a modified” and remove the period after Project.

1

CTS-00689 Tables: 9.3-1A 9.3-3 9.3-4 9.3-5 9.3-6 9.3-7 9.3-8 9.3-9 9.3-10 9.3-11 9.3-12 9.3-13 9.3-14 9.3-15 9.3-16 9.3-17 9.3-18 9.3-19 9.3-20 9.3-21 9.3-22 9.3-23 9.3-24 9.3-25 9.3-26 9.3-27

9.3-33,9.3-36,9.3-37,9.3-38,9.3-39,9.3-40,9.3-41,9.3-42,9.3-43,9.3-44,9.3-45, 9.3-46,9.3-47,9.3-48,9.3-49,9.3-50,9.3-51,9.3-52,9.3-53,9.3-54,9.3-55,9.3-56,9.3-58,9.3-59,9.3-60, 9. 3-61, 9.3-62,9.3-63,

Update the proprietary status of information

Remove “Withheld from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 (a) (4)” from the title.

1

9_2

Change ID No.


Reason for change


ERT/R

9.3-64,9.3-65 9.3-66,9.3-67,9.3-68,9.3-69,9.3-70,9.3-71,9.3-72,9.3-73,9.3-74

CTS-00690 Figure 9.3-2 - Editorial Correction

Remove box with “Proprietary Information – Withheld Under 10 CFR 2.399 (a) (4)” and provide figure.

1

ALT-09 9.2 9.2-28 Editorial Correction

Remove the sentence “The levelized cost of electricity produced from pulverized coal fired power plants is $0.033/kWh - $0.041/kWh”

1

ALT-09 9.2 9.2-30 Erratum Replace $575 with $544 1

Chapter 10

10_1


Change ID No.



ERT/R



0


CTS-00461 10.1.3.2.1 10.1-11 Editorial Correction Remove “diesel generators”, and mention the auxiliary boiler as an air emission source.

0

CTS-00459 Table 10.1-1 10.1-14 Erratum Change “200 ac” to “400 ac”. 0


CTS-00633 Table 10.1-1 10.1-14 Erratum Change 4152 to indicate this is the fourth item in the table and the number cited is 152

0

CTS-00460 10.1 10.1-5 Erratum Add text to show an additional 250 gpm will be provided for de-mineralized water, and change “fifty gpm” to “three hundred gpm”.

0

CTS-00505 10.1.3.2.2 10.1-12 Editorial correction Remove “adds on impact”. 0

CTS-00505 10.1.3.2.2 10.1-12 Editorial correction Remove “not”. 0

CTS-00634 10.4.1.2.1 10.4-3 Erratum Change “4461” to “4466”. 0

CTS-00459 10.4.2.2.1 10.4-8 Erratum Change “approximately 200 ac” to “400 ac”.

0

10_2

Change ID No.



ERT/R

CTS-00506 Table 10.4-2 10.4-15 Erratum Change alignment of “3180”. 0


NP-17 10.1.1.2 10.1-2 Errata Changed “construction workers” to “on-site workforce” Changed “reach 4300 in 2013” to “be 5201” Changed “construction” to “on-site”

2

NP-17 10.1 10.1-5 Erratum Changed “A thermal plume created from cooling water blowdown would be discharged to the Lake Granbury” to “Subsection 5.3.2.1 describes the thermal plume analysis and impacts from CPNPP.”

2

NP-17 10.1.3.1.1 10.1-7 Errata Changed “550” to “494” Changed “1550” to 1494”

2

NP-17 10.1.3.1.1 10.1-9 Editorial correction Removed Radiological category discussion

2

NP-17 10.1.3.1.2 10.1-9 Errata Changed “4300 construction” to “5201” Removed “in 2013”

2

NP-17 10.1.3.2.2 10.1-12 Errata Changed “550” to “494” Changed “1550” to “1494”

2

NP-17 Table 10.3-1 10.3-6 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Changed “avoid” to “reduce” 2

NP-17 10.4.1.1.1 10.4-1 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Revised to clarify socioeconomics and to be consistent with other subsections.

2

10_3

Change ID No.



ERT/R

NP-17 10.4.1.1.1 10.4-2 Errata Changed “550” to “494” Changed “4300” to “4953” Added “and 248 operations workers” before “on-site” and “at the start of operations” to clarify the socioeconomics and to be consistent with other subsections.

2

NP-17 10.4.1.1.1 10.4-2 Errata Replace “economy of the region” with “economic region” and added “economic” before “region”

2


Changed “SMALL” to “LARGE” as a result of revisions.

2


Revised subsection to clarify socioeconomics and to be consistent with other subsections.

2

NP-17 10.4.1.1.2 10.4-2 Erratum Changed “2007” to “2006” Changed “1121” to “48,965” Changed “Hood County and 220 people unemployed in Somervell County.” to “the economic region.”

2

NP-17 10.4.1.1.2 10.4-2 Erratum Changed “vicinity and a SMALL beneficial impact in the region.” To “economic region” and Changed vicinity to “economic region”

2


Revised subsection to clarify socioeconomics and to be consistent with other subsections.

2

NP-17 10.4.1.2.3 10.4-4 Errata Changed “989” and “1664” Changed “5289” to “5131” Changed “4300” to “4953” Changed “550” to “494” Changed “682” to “272” Changed “1232” to “766”

2

NP-17 10.4.2.2.2 10.4-9 Errata Changed 56,592,000 gpd” to “55,690,560 gpd” Changed “consumption” to “forced evaporation”

2

10_4

Change ID No.



ERT/R

Removed reference to “(Subsection 2.3.2.2.4)” and replace with “Table 2.3-38”

NP-17 10.4.2.2.5 10.4-10 Discussed with the NRC

Removed subsection 10.4.2.2.5 as the discussion is not in context.

2

NP-17 10.4.2.2.6 10.4-11 Editorial Correction Changed subsection 10.4.2.2.6 to 10.4.2.2.5

2

NP-17 10.4.2.2.7 10.4-11 Editorial Correction Removed subsection 10.4.2.2.7 as the discussion is not in context.

2

NP-17 10.4.2.2.8 10.4-11 Editorial Correction Changed subsection “10.4.2.2.8” to “10.4.2.2.6”

2

NP-17 Table 10.4-1 (sheet 1 of 2)

10.4-13 Errata Changed “Net ad” to “Ad” Changed “4300” to “4953” Changed “550” to “494” Aligned the Subheading to the left. Removed subtitle below the line. Added “in $/$100 valuation” to clarify the tax rates.

2

NP-17 Table 10.4-1 (sheet 2 of 2)

10.4-14 Erratum Removed “Dependence on Foreign Energy” row item Removed “Foreign Trade Deficit” row item.

2

NP-17 Table 10.4-2 10.4-15 Editorial Correction Replaced footnote “a)” with “Air emissions were calculated using AP 42”

2

NP-17 Table 10.4-3 (Sheet 2 of 3)

10.4-17 Editorial Correction Removed row “Radioactive Effluents and Emissions” and “Potential Nuclear Accident” row items.

2


10.4-19 Erratum Changed “4300” to “4953” Changed “550” to “494” Changed “1671” to “1936” Changed “989” to “1801” Changed “521” to “135”

2


10.4-20 Editorial Correction Removed row for “Foreign Trade Deficit”

2

10_5

Change ID No.



ERT/R


10.4-21 Editorial Correction Removed “Potential Nuclear Accident” row item.

2

10.1-2

• A relatively SMALL amount of land would be disturbed during construction of the pipeline and transmission corridors. New pipelines are planned to be placed in the existing right-of-way (ROW). An estimate of the amount of area disturbed by construction of the transmission corridors is currently unavailable because the actual routes have not been determined by Oncor Electrical Delivery Company LLC (Oncor).

• A SMALL potential for limited disturbance to buried historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources could occur.

• Construction debris would be disposed of in permitted off-site landfills.

• A SMALL amount of water would be consumed in implementing various construction activities (see Subsection 4.2.1.3).

• A SMALL temporary increase in the sediment load into Lake Granbury could occur as a result of constructing the intake/discharge structures for the cooling system; minor and short-term effects upon species and habitat could occur along the shoreline of Lake Granbury.

• Construction activities near Squaw Creek Reservoir (SCR) may result in erosion, sediment discharge, and stormwater runoff into the reservoir; relatively SMALL short-term effects upon species and habitat could occur near and within the reservoir.

• Use of equipment could introduce the potential for SMALL petroleum or other related spills that could enter surfacewater.

• Construction at the edge of Lake Granbury and SCR, and transmission lines crossing water bodies might cause a SMALL short-term loss of some aquatic organisms and temporary degradation of aquatic habitat.

• Loss of some herbaceous/grassland habitat, and disruption of some species could occur near and within the construction area of CPNPP Units 3 and 4, and the pipeline and transmission corridors. Some of this land may be revegetated and allowed to enter secondary succession states once construction has been completed. Some dislocated species are expected to recover. The impacts are considered to be SMALL.

10.1.1.2 Unavoidable Socioeconomic Impacts

As discussed in Subsection 4.4.1.1, the peak number of construction workerson-site workforce is estimated to reach 4300 in 2013be 5201. The projected constructionon-site workforce constitutes a relatively SMALL increase in population, with respect to the total population of the region.

The following subsection briefly identifies and describes the unavoidable adverse socioeconomic impacts that would occur as a result of constructing CPNPP Units 3 and 4:

• A SMALL potential for housing and rental space shortages.

NP-17

10.1-5

returned to Lake Granbury is estimated to be 42,100 ac-ft/yr (depending on cooling tower cycles of concentration). The estimated annual consumptive water loss (water lost to cooling tower evaporation and drift) from Lake Granbury is estimated to be approximately 61,617 ac-ft/yr (Figure 2.3-30), which constitutes a relatively SMALL usage on existing water resources.

• Construction of a pipeline from Wheeler Branch would provide 50 gpm of potable water for use at CPNPP Units 3 and 4. An additional 250 gpm will be provided forde-mineralized water makeup and system flushing. FiftyThree hundred gpm represents a relatively SMALL consumptive use of the local potable water supply.

• Blowdown water should meet Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permitted standards for discharge into the Lake Granbury and would constitute a relatively SMALL impact.

• Wastewater generation from the floor and equipment drains, stormwater, nonradioactive laboratory wastewater, auxiliary boiler blowdown, and sanitary wastes would meet TPDES permitted standards for wastewater effluents. The wastewater would also meet applicable regulatory Off-site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) limits for low level (LL) radioactive waste (radioactive drains, radioactive system leakage, radioactive laboratory drains, and radioactive wastewater) discharge into SCR. The environmental impact would be SMALL.

• Some TPDES permitted wastewater that would include wastewater from equipment drains is discharged into retention ponds. Small amounts of chemical constituents would evaporate into the air from these ponds. The environmental impact would be SMALL.

• A thermal plume created from cooling water blowdown would be discharged to the LakeGranbury.Subsection 5.3.2.1 describes the thermal plume analysis and impacts from CPNPP. Summaries of the predicted thermal discharge plume analysis data are provided in Table 5.3-2. The impact would be SMALL because the discharge is unlikely to have any discernable effect on water quality or the aquatic biota.

• SMALL amounts of stormwater could drain into nearby water bodies. Routine/maintenance activities at the site and along the pipeline and transmission corridors could result in the potential for SMALL episodic spills of petroleum or chemicals.

• Routine maintenance on the pipeline and transmission corridors could result in a SMALL adverse impact to aquatic and terrestrial species.

• Routine discharges to water in SCR and Lake Granbury could result in a SMALL adverse impact to aquatic biota.

• Water intakes and cooling towers are designed using best available technology (BAT) to minimizing impingement, which is a mitigating measure.

• A continued long-term disruption could occur of some herbaceous/grassland habitat, and disruption of some species near CPNPP Units 3 and 4. Some of this land may be

CTS-00460

NP-17

10.1-7

As described in Subsection 5.8.1.1, operation of the CPNPP Units 3 and 4 is projected to increase the worker population by 550494. This brings the total to 15501494 operation workers, with 1000 workers for CPNPP Units 1 and 2. Because operations commence following construction there should actually be fewer stresses on socioeconomic factors such as housing, community services and infrastructures. Some short-term impacts are discussed below.

• A SMALL short-term school crowding issue.

• A SMALL additional increase in traffic congestion on local roads. The long-term effect is smaller than that which occurs during the construction phase.

• A relatively SMALL increase in ambient noise levels that may impact workers and nearby residents as a result of increased worker traffic, plant operations, and maintenance on the transmission corridor.

• Operation of vehicles, auxiliary boilers, and the testing and operation of the standby generators, fire pumps, and other equipment would generate relatively SMALL increased quantities of air emissions in the facility’s air permit as issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).

The operational socioeconomic impacts can be at least partially offset through the use of selected mitigation measures. No impacts that are disproportionately high or adverse on minority or low income populations were identified in association with either the construction or operational phases of CPNPP Units 3 and 4.

10.1.3 SUMMARY OF UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS IMPACTS

This subsection summarizes the unavoidable adverse construction and operations impacts, and describes methods for mitigating the impacts. Through the application of mitigation measures, some of the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the CPNPP Units 3 and 4 may be decreased or reduced to the point where they have no measurable effect. The unavoidable impacts are summarized.

10.1.3.1 Construction Impacts

Construction impacts and mitigation measures are summarized in Table 10.1-1. All impacts, other than socioeconomic, from the construction of CPNPP Units 3 and 4, and clearing of the pipeline and transmission corridors are SMALL and relatively short-term in nature. These environmental impacts can either be partly mitigated or may dissipate after construction is complete.

10.1.3.1.1 Environmental

This subsection summarizes the environmental impacts that would result from construction of CPNPP Units 3 and 4.

Land Use

NP-17

10.1-9

procedures, BMPs, and noise level standards imposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).

Atmospheric and Meteorological

Negligible air emissions that do not require mitigation would be produced by vehicles and some equipment.

Radiological

On-site construction workers would receive a very low incidental external radiation dose fromCPNPP Units 1 and 2. After CPNPP Unit 3 becomes operational, CPNPP Unit 4 constructionworkers would receive an additional, albeit very SMALL incremental dose from this unit as well.Section 4.5 provides an assessment of the potential radiological exposure. Any such exposure ismonitored and well within applicable regulatory limits. These impacts could be reduced throughemployee training and adherence to strict work procedures.

10.1.3.1.2 Socioeconomic

This subsection summarizes the socioeconomic impacts that would result from construction of the CPNPP Units 3 and 4. During construction, SMALL socioeconomic impacts might occur as a result of an influx of construction workers. Socioeconomic impacts can be at least partially offset through the use of selected mitigation measures. Most people probably consider socioeconomic impacts to be generally beneficial. Increased tax revenue generated from the proposed project could be used to fund schools, road improvements, and upgrades to the fire protection infrastructure.

As outlined in Subsection 4.4.2.1, the peak workforce in 2013 is projected to involve 4300construction5201 workers, a relatively small fraction of the total projected population of the region. In addition, the workforce for CPNPP Units 1 and 2 reached 10,000 and there were no significant socioeconomic impacts. Potential impacts are presented below.

Local roads in the vicinity of CPNPP would experience increased traffic. Mitigation measures that might be implemented to partially offset traffic impacts include encouraging car pooling, staggering shifts, advertising and erecting signs alerting drivers of increased construction traffic, and constructing turn lanes onto the CPNPP site.

Visual effects and noise from the four cooling towers and transmission corridor, would be limited to meet state nuisance rules and pose a SMALL aesthetic impact, which does not warrant any mitigation measures.

As with any large construction project, there is a relatively SMALL to MODERATE potential for an increase in serious accidents among construction workers. The risk would continue through the entire construction phase. The risk can be reduced by introducing a safety program, mandating safety meetings, and having a safety officer supervise construction activities.

NP-17

NP-17

10.1-12

Non-hazardous waste would be handled in accordance with TCEQ regulations (e.g. permitted landfills, incineration) and would pose a SMALL impact on the environment. Hazardous RCRA waste would be handled in accordance with RCRA regulations and disposed of at a RCRA permitted waste facility. The impacts of non-hazardous and hazardous waste are considered to be relatively SMALL.

The two proposed CPNPP units would generate small amounts of LL radioactive and potentially very small amounts of mixed waste (waste containing both hazardous and radioactive constituents) that would need to be disposed of. Mixed waste would be stored on-site and disposed of at permitted mixed-waste disposal facilities according to applicable regulations. If mixed waste is properly managed (as done for CPNPP Units 1 and 2), the additional incremental risk of this waste is considered to pose a SMALL risk. In addition, very limited quantities (less than 1 cu yard) of mixed waste has been generated at CPNPP from the operations of CPNPP Units 1 and 2.

CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would generate high-level (HL) spent fuel waste during plant operation. Generation of HL radioactive spent fuel would need to be either reprocessed or isolated. Properly managed, the additional incremental risk of this waste is considered to pose a MODERATE but acceptable risk.

10.1.3.2.2 Socioeconomic

This subsection summarizes the socioeconomic impacts that would result from operation of the CPNPP Units 3 and 4. Some impacts such as growth induced effects may continue beyond the operational life of the CPNPP Units 3 and 4. Because of the smaller number of workers that would be required for operations as opposed to construction, the socioeconomic impacts are generally less intense but are sustained over a longer period of time when compared to that of construction.

As described in Subsection 5.8.1.1, the number of CPNPP work staff is estimated to total 15501494 operation workers, with 1000 workers for CPNPP Units 1 and 2, and 550494 workers for CPNPP Units 3 and 4, a relatively SMALL fraction of the total projected population of the region.

When compared to the overall hydrocarbon emission released in the local area, the operation of equipment and employee vehicles would release a relatively SMALL quantity of nonradioactive pollutants to the atmosphere and can be reduced through strict compliance with applicable air pollution control equipment. Visual impact adds on impact from the plant are SMALL and do not warrant mitigation.

Infrequent loud noises from plant operations and maintenance activities on the pipeline and transmission corridors might result in a SMALL change in ambient noise levels experienced by workers and local residents. Increased noise levels experienced by workers could be mitigated with noise protection equipment. Impacts on nearby residents can be reduced by staging loud intermittent activities during times when they would result in fewer disturbances.

An influx of operational workers would likely not have a SMALL short-term strain on the local school systems because construction workers and their families would relocate. The increase in

NP-17

CTS-00505

CTS-00505

10.3-6

TABLE 10.3-1 (Sheet 1 of 3)RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

IssuesShort-Term Usage,

Benefits, and Impacts

Relationship to Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Environmental Productivity

Usa

ge o

f Env

ironm

enta

l Res

ourc

es

Depletion of Uranium As a reactor fuel, uranium provides a short-term supply of relatively clean energy.

The proposed project contributes to the long-term cumulative depletion of the finite global uranium supply.

Conservation of Finite Fossil Fuel Supplies

During its operational life, CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would avoidreduce the consumption of fossil fuels supplies.

Over the long-term, the proposed project would reduce the depletion of global fossil fuel supplies.

Materials, Energy, and Water

In the construction and operation phases, energy, and materials would be consumed. Once operational, the proposed plants would generate far more energy than would be used in the construction and operation of the plants.

A small amount of water is consumed during the construction and operation of the units.

Construction and operation of the CPNPP Units 3 and 4 would contribute to the cumulative long-term irretrievable use of materials, energy, and water. However, the reactors would provide far more energy than would be consumed in their construction.

Land Use The proposed project would result in the continued commitment of land use at the existing site. A small additional amount of land may also be required for the water pipeline and transmission line corridors. In the short term, the project could result in some potential loss in agricultural productivity, and/or natural habitats and woodlands in the transmission corridors. In general, the land required for a nuclear plant, on a Mw/ac basis, is equal to or less than land required for alternative technologies.

The proposed project does not represent a significant long-term land-use impact, as the land could be released for other uses or returned to its natural state after the reactors have been decommissioned.

NP-17

10.4-13

TABLE 10.4-1 (Sheet 1 of 2)MONETARY AND NON-MONETARY BENEFITS CONSTRUCTING AND

OPERATING CPNPP UNITS 3 AND 4

Benefits Category Project as Proposed

Description of Project CPNPP Units 3 and 4 as Proposed

Sales Tax 1% of gross receipts less compensation or the costs of goods sold.

Property Taxes by Jurisdiction (Total Tax Rate-2002 in $/$100 valuation)

Hood County: $0.3325

Granbury: $0.4400

Lipan: $0.3300

Tolar: $0.4600

Acton MUD: $0.1322

Granbury ISD: $1.7300

Lipan ISD: $1.7500

Tolar ISD: $1.6700

Somervell County: $0.3300

Glen Rose: $0.4857

Somervell Co. Water Dist.

$0.0044

Glen Rose ISD: $1.0753

Net adAd valorem taxes paid by County (2006)

Hood County: $42,695

Somerville County: $24,361,909

Construction Workers 43004953 people employed during peak construction.

Operational Workers 550494 people employed during operation.

Indirect Jobs Created An incremental increase in indirect jobs added.

Generating Capacity 3250 MWe

Electricity Capacity 25,500,000 MWh annually

NP-17

NP-17

NP-17

NP-17

NP-17

10.4-15

TABLE 10.4-2AVOIDED AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS(a)

a) Assumes use of current standard air pollution mitigation technology.Air emissions werecalculated using AP 42.

Luminant Estimate of a3180 MW Gas-Fired Plant(b)

b) Numbers based on information presented in Subsection 9.2.3.

Luminant Estimate of a 3180 MW Coal-Fired Plant(b)

Pollutant English Tons per Year (Tpy) English Tons per Year (Tpy)

SO2 253 3933

NOx 2676 2610

CO 1115 3625

CO2 8,200,000 35,000,000

PM2.5 142 18,886

PM10 N/A 4344

NP-17

CTS-00506

10.4-17

Terrestrial and Aquatic Biology Some wildlife mortality during construction is anticipated; however, these costs are expected not to affect long-term wildlife populations. Building a water pipeline through SCR would have a MODERATE but short-lived impact. Wildlife mortality, including aquatic biota, during operation is expected to be minimal.

Radioactive Effluents and Emissions Radioactive waste and minor amounts ofradioactive air emissions are generated. Relatively small levels of radioactive effluents are introduced SCR. Effects of these effluents on SCR are SMALL.

Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Management and disposal of small amounts of hazardous wastes pursuant the RCRA.

Storage, packaging for shipment, and disposal of low-level (LL) radioactive waste and high-level radioactive spent nuclear fuel.

Commitment of geological resources for disposal of radioactive spent fuel.

Air Emissions Air emissions from gas and diesel generators, auxiliary boilers and equipment, and vehicles that have a SMALL impact on workers and local residents.

Cooling tower drift deposits some salt on the surrounding vicinity, but the level is unlikely to result in any measureable impact on plants and vegetation. Cooling tower produces atmospheric plume discharge. Impacts are SMALL.

Materials, Energy, and Uranium Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of materials and energy, including depletion of uranium.

Potential Nuclear Accident The costs of potential nuclear accidentswould be large; however, the probability of such accidents is very small. Therefore, the overall probably-weighted costs of potential nuclear accidents are SMALL.

TABLE 10.4-3 (Sheet 2 of 3)INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COSTS OF CPNPP UNITS 3 AND 4

Cost Category Cost

NP-17

NP-17

10.4-19

TABLE 10.4-4 (Sheet 1 of 4)SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL BENEFITS AND COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTING

AND OPERATING CPNPP UNITS 3 AND 4

Attribute Benefits Costs

Capital and Operating Costs Provides a relatively clean and abundant form of baseload electricity that is relatively cost-competitive with fossil fuels.

Capital costs are estimated to range between $3600 – $4000 per kW for a combined two-unit construction cost of $11.3 – $12.5 billion.

Operational, two-unit costs are estimated to range between $32 – $74 per MWh.

Note: These cost estimates are based on industry studies.

Taxes and Revenue Luminant would pay 1% of gross receipts less compensation or the costs of goods sold.

N/A

Ad valorem taxes are paid on the new CPNPP units.

N/A

Increased property tax levied by impacted jurisdictions.

Increased services to in-migrants for housing, education, and public safety.

Regional Productivity Provides an influx of 43004953 construction workers and 550494operational workers.

N/A

Adds 16711936 indirect jobs to the 50-mi region (9891801during construction and 521135 during operations).

N/A

Net Electrical Generation Provides a combined electrical generation of 25,500,000 MWh annually.

N/A

Fuel Diversity Increases fuel mix diversity that reduces potential energy disruptions and other adverse consequences.

N/A

Electrical Reliability Enhances electrical reliability. N/A

NP-17

NP-17

NP-17

10.4-20

Price Volatility Dampens potential for price volatility.

N/A

Air Pollution Provides major beneficial impact in terms of avoidance of fossil-fueled power plant air emissions.

Generates some minor amounts of air emissions during construction and some minor levels of radioactive air emissions during operations.

Aesthetics Does not contribute to smog that significantly obscures the viewscape when compared to fossil-fueled plants.

Produces a relatively small steam and vapor plume that can obscure the viewscape.

Global Warming and Climate Change

Offers significant beneficial impact in terms of avoidance of greenhouse gases that may contribute to the greenhouse effect.

N/A

Dependence on Foreign Energy

Reduces dependence on foreign energy and vulnerability to energy disruptions.

N/A

Foreign Trade Deficit Reduces foreign trade deficit. N/A

Fossil Fuel Supplies Offsets usage of finite fossil fuel supplies.

Consumes finite supplies of uranium.

Land and Land Use Consumes less land than a comparably gas-fired plant and a comparable coal-fired plant.

The CPNPP Units 3 and 4 construction alters approximately 123 ac, 7950 ac existing CPNPP site and approximately 384400 ac are expected to be altered for the BDTF. 152 ac are altered for the cooling towers. No explanation of existing transmission corridor is expected.




NP-17

CTS-00459

10.4-21

Hydrological and Water Use Produces a cleaner form of energy than either coal- or gas-fired plants. Consumes about the same amount of water as a coal- or gas-fired plant, but results in much lower effluent discharges.

Consumes some water. Produces a thermal plume and small amounts of radioactive waste are discharged.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Species

Produces a relatively cleaner form of energy with about the same level of impacts on terrestrial and aquatic species as is expected from either a comparable coal- or gas-fired plant.

Some cost to wildlife due to mortality as a result of construction and operation of Units 3 and 4.

Hazardous and Radioactive Waste

Produces much less hazardous waste than do fossil-fueled plants, particularly coal-fired plants.

Generates relatively small quantities of hazardous and LL radioactive waste that require storage, packaging for shipment, and disposal. Requires storage and disposal of high-level radioactive spent nuclear fuel. Commitment of geological resources for disposal of radioactive spent fuel.

Materials, Energy, and Uranium

Reduces the amount of finite fossil fuels used if a comparable coal- or gas-fired plant were built instead.

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of materials and energy, including depletion of uranium.

Potential Nuclear Accident N/A Introduces the potential for anuclear accident.




NP-17

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4 COL Application

Part 2, FSAR

Update Tracking Report

Revision 1

April 24 2009

Revision History

Revision Date Update Description 0 3/31/2009 Original Issue

Updated Chapters: Ch.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 19

Incorporated responses to following RAIs: No.1

1 4/24/2009 Updated Chapters: Ch. 2, 6

Chapter 1

1_1


Change ID No.

Section FSAR Rev. 0 Page


FSART/R

CTS-00586 1.2 1.2-3 1.2-4

Consistent with Subsection9.4.5.2.6

Add “UHS” before “ESW pump”. 0

CTS-00586 1.2 1.2-4 Erratum Change the number of pumps. 0 CTS-00534 1.8 1.8-13 Consistent with

DCD Rev.1 Correct COL 3.2(4) and 3.2(5) to reflect wording changes in DCD Rev1.

0

CTS-00535 1.8 1.8-16 Consistent with DCD Rev.1

Correct COL3.5(2) to reflect wording changes in DCD Rev1.

0

CTS-00536 1.8 1.8-23 Editorial correction Change “AD/V2” to “AD/V2”. 0CTS-00537 1.8 1.8-28 Consistent with

DCD Rev.1Correct COL3.8(19) to reflect wording changes in DCD Rev1.

0



0



0

CTS-00550 1.8 1.8-41 Editorial correction Delete “these” from COL 6.2(1). 0CTS-00539 1.8 1.8-43 Editorial correction Add “and” in COL 6.4(5). 0CTS-00540 1.8 1.8-55 Editorial correction Change “an” to “a ” in

COL10.3(1). 0

CTS-00541 1.8 1.8-56 Editorial correction Change “deta” to “data” in COL11.2(3).

0



0

DCD_12.01-2

1.8 1.8-61 Delete Outdated RG Delete reference to RG8.20, 8.26, and 8.32 from COL12.1(3).

0


Correct COL13.1(5), 13.2(2) and 13.2(3) to reflect wording changes in DCD Rev1.

0

CTS-00610 13.5.2 1.8-66 Update Add Subsection “13.5.2.1” in Table 1.8-201.

0


Correct COL13.6(1)and 13.7(1) to reflect wording changes in DCD Rev1.

0


Delete COL16.1_3(1). 0

CTS-00546 1.8 1.8-71 Editorial correction Delete “and” from COL16.1_3.3.2(1).

0



0

CTS-00530 1.9 1.9-7 Correct Corresponding Section

Delete reference to 5.2.1.2 from RG1.84.

0

CTS-00529 1.9 1.9-16 Correct COLA/FSAR Status

Add “with exceptions” to “Conformance” in RG 4.15.

0

1_2

Change ID No.



FSART/R

DCD_12.01-2

1.9 1.9-18 1.9-19

Delete Outdated RG Delete reference to RG8.20, 8.26, and 8.32 from Table1.9-203.

0

Chapter 2

2_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

CTS-00636 Table 2.0-1R

2.0-3 2.0-13

Editorial correction Change “X/Q” to “ /Q”. ( is a Greek letter.)

0

CTS-00637 Table 2.2-203 Table 2.2-206

2.2-28 2.2-33

Editorial correction Change “CPNPP Units 1 & 2” to “CPNPP Units 1 and 2”.

0

CTS-00587 Table 2.3-206

2.3-71 Erratum Change “5” to “3”. 0

CTS-00636 Table 2.3-342

2.3-252 2.3-253

Editorial correction Change “X/Q” to “ /Q”. ( is a Greek letter.)

0

CTS-00590 2.4.1.1 2.4-2 Editorial correction Change “grade” to “floor elevation”.

0

CTS-00591 2.4.1.1 2.4-3 Editorial correction Change “Category I seismic requirement” to “seismic category I requirement”.

0

CTS-00661 2.4.1.2.1 2.4-5 Editorial correction Add "(Figure 2.4.1-207)" after Morris-Sheppard Dam.

0

CTS-00662 2.4.1.2.1 2.4-6 Editorial correction Add reference numbers according to CTS-00666.

0

CTS-00592 2.4.1.2.3.2 2.4-7 Editorial correction Change “intake pumping station” to “makeup water intake structure” and “cooling tower makeup pumps” to “makeup water pumps, makeup water jockey pump”.

0

CTS-00663 2.4.1.2.3.3 2.4-8 Editorial correction Add reference numbers as appropriate according to CTS-00666.

0

CTS-00664 2.4.1.2.3.3 2.4-8 Editorial correction Delete "contributing". 0 CTS-00665 2.4.1.2.3.3 2.4-8 Update Change "16,113 sq mi" to

"25,679 sq mi". 0

CTS-00593 2.4.11.5 2.4-38 Editorial correction Remove “to the cooling water system flow”.

0

CTS-00655 2.4.12.2.4 2.4-46 Editorial correction Change “X” to “XX”. 0 CTS-00513

RCOL2_ 2.4.13-1through RCOL2_ 2.4.13-7

2.4.12.2.42.4.12.2.52.4.12.3.12.4.12.52.4.13

2.4-46through 2.4-64

To reflect information provided during acceptance review

Re-write section reflecting RAI #1.

0

2_2

Change ID No.



FSART/R

CTS-00656 2.4.12.3.1 2.4-51 Editorial correction Delete “(or are) expected to be”.

0

Change ID No.

Section Page Reason for change Change Summary Rev. of

T/R

CTS-00657 2.4.12.3.1 2.4-52 Editorial correction Change X to lower-case in mathematical expressions.

0

CTS-00658 2.4.12.5 2.4-53 Editorial correction Add “aquifer”. 0 CTS-00659 2.4.13 2.4-56 Editorial correction Change “Kd” to Kd”. 0 CTS-00666 2.4.16 2.4-63 Editorial correction Add new references. 0 CTS-00589 Table 2.4.1-

203 2.4-68through 2.4-70

Erratum Add reference citations. 0

CTS-00654 Table 2.4.1-203

2.4-68through 2.4-70

Editorial correction Change header titles and lower case from MSL to msl.

0

CTS-00655 Table 2.4.1-203

2.4-68through 2.4-70

Erratum Change values to match reference.

0

CTS-00588 Table 2.4.1-206

2.4-72 Erratum Change “8186” to” 6354” and “0.383” to “0.362”. Add reference citations.

0

CTS-00594 2.5.1 2.5-53 Clarification Add “potable” and “beneath the site”.

0

CTS-00599 2.5.2 2.5-61 2.5-62

Editorial correction Delete the semi-colon in the bullet item list.

0

CTS-00595 2.5.2 2.5-61 Editorial correction Remove IBR statement. 0 CTS-00515 2.5.2.5.1 2.5-110

through 2.5-113


Add three pages to clarify discussion.

0

CTS-00516 2.5.2.6.1.1 2.5.2.6.1.2

2.5-113 2.5-117


Revise Subsection reflecting commitment to NRC.

0

CTS-00667 2.5.4.3.3 2.5-166 Editorial correction Change "The average elevation of the top of engineering Layer C is about 780 ft to 782 ft below the Unit 3 power block, and about 782 ft to 784 ft below the Unit 4 power block (Figure 2.5.4-214)." to "The average elevation of the top ofengineering Layer C is

0

2_3

Change ID No.



FSART/R

approximately 782 ft below the Unit 3 and Unit 4 power block (Figure 2.5.4-214)".

CTS-00597 2.5.4 2.5-121 Editorial correction Remove IBR statement. 0 CTS-00514 2.5.4.5.4 2.5-177

2.5-179 To reflect information provided during acceptance review


0

CTS-00517 2.5.4.8 2.5-187 To reflect information provided during acceptance review


0

CTS-00598 2.5.5 2.5-195 Editorial correction Remove IBR statement. 0

CTS-00515 2.5.2.5 2.5-224 Editorial correction Revise Subsection reflecting commitment to NRC.

0

CTS-00515 2.5.7 2.5-227 2.5-228


Add references 2.5-432 through 2.5-436

0

CTS-00515 2.5.7 2.5-228 To reflect information provided during acceptance review

Add reference 2.5-432. 0

CTS-00668 Table 2.5.1-201

2.5-229 2.5-230

Editorial correction Delete "from the Studies of Madole (1988), Crone and Luza (1990), and Swan et al. (1993)" from the title of the table.

0

CTS-00669 Table 2.5.1-201

2.5-230 Editorial correction Add reference citations. 0

CTS-00672 Table 2.5.1-202

2.5-231 Editorial correction Delete notes. 0

CTS-00673 Table 2.5.1-203


CTS-00673 Table 2.5.1-203

2.5-232 Editorial correction Delete and rewrite notes. 0

CTS-00670 Table 2.5.1-205


CTS-00671 Table 2.5.1-206


CTS-00674 Table 2.5.2-227

2.5-312 Editorial correction Delete references in notes. 0

CTS-00515 List of Tables

List of Figures

2-xxxii 2-xlviii

Commitment to NRC

Add Tables 2.5.2-230 through 2.5.2-235.

Add Figures 2.5.2-240 through 2.5.2-246.

0

2_4

Change ID No.



FSART/R

CTS-00516 List of Tables

List of Figures

2-xxxii 2-xlviii

Commitment to NRC

Add Tables 2.5.2-236 and 2.5.2-237.

Add Figures 2.5.2-247 through 2.5.2-252.

0

CTS-00515 Tables 2.5.2-230through 2.5.2-237

- To reflect information provided during acceptance review

Add new Tables. 0

CTS-00516 Figures 2.5.2-240through 2.5.2-250

- To reflect information provided during acceptance review

Add new Figures 0

MET-04 List of Tables

2-xxiv,2-xxv

Erratum Add “Dallas” in front of “Fort Worth” and “Airport” after “Fort Worth” for table number 2.3-296

1

CTS-00696 2.2.2.2.8 2.2-5 Increase information as discussed with NRC during the 03-23-25-09 Hazards Analysis Audit

Changed distance for DeCordova to 9.35 miles.

1

CTS-00697 2.2.2.6 2.2-8 Increase information as discussed with NRC during the 03-23-25-09 Hazards Analysis Audit

Added clarification that rail transport of hazardous materials is outside the 5 mile radius of CPNPP 3 & 4

1

CTS-00699 2.2.2.7.1 2.2-9 Increase information as discussed with NRC during the 03-23-25-09 Hazards Analysis Audit

Added clarifying statement that the airports listed were predominant airports in the area outside 10 miles that did not exceed the 1000 D2

criterion.

Added back in the discussion for each predominant airport in the area outside the 10 miles.

1

CTS-00698 2.2.3.1.1.2 2.2-12 Increase information as discussed with NRC during the 03-23-25-09 Hazards Analysis Audit

Added clarifying discussion on how the Wolf Hollow hazardous materials were sceened for the hazards analysis since quantities were not made available.

1

CTS-00698 2.2.3.1.3.1 2.2-17 Increase information as discussed with NRC during the 03-23-25-09 Hazards

Added clarifying discussion on how the Wolf Hollow hazardous materials were sceened for the control room

1

2_5

Change ID No.



FSART/R

Analysis Audit habitability analysis since quantities were not made available.

CTS-00696 2.2.3.1.3.2.2 2.2-18 Increase information as discussed with NRC during the 03-23-25-09 Hazards Analysis Audit

Clarified discussion regarding DeCordova was analyzed for Hazards and Control Room Habitablilty analyses even though the distance is outside the 5 mile radius of Units 3 & 4.

1

CTS-00698 Table 2.2-205

2.2-32 Increase information as discussed with NRC during the 03-23-25-09 Hazards Analysis Audit

Added footnote that the quantities of chemicals were not made available for Wolf Hollow and a pointer added to indicate what sections have the sceening criteria utilized for Wolf Hollow.

1

CTS-00696 Table 2.2-214

2.2-43 Increase information as discussed with NRC during the 03-23-25-09 Hazards Analysis Audit

Added IDLH and Max concentration in Control Room and footnote (b) indicating that DeCordova was conservatively analyzed even though it is outside the 5 mile radius of U3/4. Distance to nearest Units 3 and 4 MCR Inlet for DeCordova SES has been revised from 3.6 to 3.7.

1

CTS-00696 Figure 2.2-201

Erratum Corrected the figure since the location of DeCordova, which is outside the 5 mile radius of CPNPP Units 3 & 4, showed DeCordova inside the 5 mile radius

1

MET-03 2.3.1.2.4 2.3-14 Increase information as discussed with the NRC.

Add “16” to number of days each year; remove “monthly and regional” and add “by county” to wind events to reconcile thunderstorm information.

1

MET-04 2.3.1.2.8 2.3-20 Erratum Add “the” in front of Dallas Fort Worth Airport

1

MET-13 2.3.2.1.2 2.3-22 Erratum Replace “2001 through 2006” with “2001 – 2004 and 2006” to describe which data years were used.

1

MET-13 2.3..2.1.3 2.3-27 Erratum Replace “2001- 2006” with “2001 – 2004 and 2006” to

1

2_6

Change ID No.



FSART/R

describe which data years were used.

MET-04 2.3.2.1.4 2.3-27 Erratum Add “Dallas” in front of “Fort Worth”

1

MET-13 2.3.2.2.4 2.3-32 Erratum Add “Fort” for the years “2001 – 2006”

1

MET-3MET-13

Table 2.3-211

2.3-83 Erratum Replace numbers in column “Average per Yr (#/yr) and Replace “2006 and (-24 yr) with “7/31/2006”

1

MET-13 Table 2.3-285

2.3-164 Errata Replace “2001 – 2006” with “2001 – 2004 and 2006” to describe which data years were used.

1


2.3-165 Erratum Add “Dallas” in front of “Fort Worth” for the title.

1


2.3-177 Erratum Add “Dallas” in front of Fort Worth and “Airport” after Worth in the title

1


2.3-180 2.3-181

Erratum Add “Dallas” in front of ”Fort Worth” in the title

1

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4


Number Title

Revision: 02-xxiv

2.3-280 Maximum Number of Consecutive Hours With Wind From Five Adjacent Sectors CPNPP, Lower Level

2.3-281 Maximum Number of Consecutive Hours With Wind From a Single Sector CPNPP, Upper Level

2.3-282 Maximum Number of Consecutive Hours With Wind From Three Adjacent Sectors CPNPP, Upper Level

2.3-283 Maximum Number of Consecutive Hours With Wind From Five Adjacent Sectors CPNPP, Upper Level

2.3-284 Comparison of Average Wind Persistence

2.3-285 CPNPP Normal Temperatures

2.3-286 Relative Humidity Dallas Fort Worth Airport for 4 Time Periods Per Day

2.3-287 Relative Humidity Mineral Wells Airport for 4 Time Periods Per Day

2.3-288 Monthly Mean and Extreme Maximum and Minimum Dewpoint Temperatures Mineral Wells

2.3-289 Hourly Meteorological Data Dallas Fort Worth Airport Worst 1-Day

2.3-290 Daily Average Meteorological Data Dallas Fort Worth Airport Worst 5 Consecutive Day Period

2.3-291 Daily Average Meteorological Data Dallas Fort Worth Airport Worst 30 Consecutive Day Period

2.3-292 Hourly Meteorological Data Mineral Wells Airport Worst 1-Day

2.3-293 Daily Average Meteorological Data Mineral Wells Airport Worst 5 Consecutive Day Period

2.3-294 Daily Average Meteorological Data Mineral Wells Airport Worst 30 Consecutive Day Period

2.3-295 Precipitation Data CPNPP

2.3-296 Rainfall Frequency Distribution Dallas Fort Worth Airport

2.3-297 Rainfall Frequency Distribution Mineral Wells

MET-04

MET-04

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 & 4


Number Title

Revision: 02-xxv

2.3-298 Rainfall Frequency Distribution CPNPP

2.3-299 Percent of Total Observations (by Month) of Indicated Wind Directions and Precipitation Dallas Fort Worth Airport

2.3-300 Percent of Total Observations (by Month) of Indicated Wind Directions and Precipitation Mineral Wells Airport

2.3-301 Percent of Total Observations (by Month) of Indicated Wind Directions and Precipitation CPNPP

2.3-302 Average Hours of Fog and Haze Dallas Fort Worth Airport

2.3-303 Average Hours of Fog and Haze Mineral Wells Airport

2.3-304 CPNPP Monthly and Annual Stability Class Percent Frequency Distributions

2.3-305 Annual Stability Class Frequency Distribution for CPNPP (Upper Bound of Wind Speed Category Listed)

2.3-306 Inversion Heights and Strengths, Fort Worth January 2000 – 2005

2.3-307 Inversion Heights and Strengths, Fort Worth February 2000 – 2005

2.3-308 Inversion Heights and Strengths, Fort Worth March 2000 – 2005

2.3-309 Inversion Heights and Strengths, Fort Worth April 2000 – 2005

2.3-310 Inversion Heights and Strengths, Fort Worth May 2000 – 2005

2.3-311 Inversion Heights and Strengths, Fort Worth June 2000 – 2005

2.3-312 Inversion Heights and Strengths, Fort Worth July 2000 – 2005

2.3-313 Inversion Heights and Strengths, Fort Worth August 2000 – 2005

2.3-314 Inversion Heights and Strengths, Fort Worth September 2000 – 2005

2.3-315 Inversion Heights and Strengths, Fort Worth October 2000 – 2005

2.3-316 Inversion Heights and Strengths, Fort Worth November 2000 – 2005

MET-04

Revision: 0


Part 2, FSAR

Figure 2.2-201 Transportation Routes, Storage Tank Locations, and Industrial Facilities within 5 mi of CPNPP

CTS-00696


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.2-5

2.2.2.2.7 Wolf Hollow 1, LP

Wolf Hollow 1, LP is a 730-megawatt (MW) gas-fired combined-cycle power plant located 4.2 mi northeast of the CPNPP site (Reference 2.2-211). Hazardous materials stored on the Wolf Hollow 1, LP site are listed in Table 2.2-205. The OSHA permissible exposure limits for the reported toxic materials are in Tables 2.2-203 and 2.2-206.

At this time no information is available concerning on-site storage tanks. An inquiry on the TCEQ database was performed and no on-site storage tanks were reported for this facility.

2.2.2.2.8 DeCordova SES

The DeCordova SES is a conventional gas/oil steam generating plant with four additional natural gas combustion turbines. The plant is located 9.353.6 mi northeast of the center point of CPNPP Units 3 and 4. Hazardous materials stored on-site are listed in Table 2.2-207. The OSHA permissible exposure limits for the reported toxic materials are in Table 2.2-203.

DeCordova SES has 13 aboveground storage tanks. The contents of the storage tanks are described in Table 2.2-208.

2.2.2.2.9 Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant

The existing CPNPP Units 1 and 2 are located within the CPNPP site boundary. The hazardous chemicals located on-site are listed in Table 2.2-209 while the OSHA permissible exposure limits are listed in Tables 2.2-203, 2.2-206, and 2.2-210. There are 22 aboveground storage tanks and four underground storage tanks on-site. These tanks hold petroleum products, gases, and other chemicals. The contents of the storage tanks are described in Table 2.2-211.

2.2.2.2.10 Wheeler Branch Reservoir and Water Treatment Facility

The Wheeler Branch Reservoir was completed in 2007 and is located 3.2 mi southeast of the CPNPP Units 3 and 4 center point. The reservoir has a surface area of 180 acres (ac) and a storage capacity of 4118 acre-feet (ac-ft). Plans are in place for a water treatment plant to process the 2000 ac-ft of water available each year for municipal use. The water treatment plant consists of the plant, ancillary facilities, and treated water distribution and storage facilities. The water treatment plant is expected to be constructed in 2010. It is anticipated that cylinders of chlorine are stored on-site for use in water treatment.

2.2.2.2.11 Mining and Quarrying Activities

There are no coal or lignite mines within the vicinity of CPNPP (Reference 2.2-208). There are 37 regular producing gas wells and two injection wells within 5 mi of CPNPP. The closest producing gas well to CPNPP is located 1.2 mi northwest,

CTS-00696


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.2-8

Estimated annual average daily traffic (AADT) counts in 2004 indicate the following (Reference 2.2-217):

• 3020 vehicles travel on FM 56 between mile 4.2 and 5.6 (west of the site).

• 11,780 vehicles travel on US 67 at mile 1.0, located in Glen Rose east of the intersection with FM 56, while 11,730 vehicles travel US 67 west of the intersection.

• 10,570 vehicles travel on SH 144 to the south of Granbury, while 6030 vehicles travel SH 144 north of the site.

2.2.2.6 Description of Railroads

The Fort Worth, Western Railroad Company owns and operates a railroad line that runs through the city of Tolar approximately 9.5 mi northwest of CPNPP. This line is the nearest main line to CPNPP. It covers the distance between Fort Worth and Brownwood. The nearest public transportation railway is the Amtrak Texas Eagle Route that passes through Cleburne 24 mi east of CPNPP. (Reference 2.2-216)

An average of two trains per day use the Tolar route. The railroad has a 50-ft right-of-way. No radiological material is transported on this line, but four to five cars of hazardous materials are transported each month.

However, these rail harzardous materials shipments are outside the 5 mi radius ofCPNPP Units 3 and 4. As a result, these potential hazardous materials were not evaluated for CPNPP Units 3 and 4. See Subsection 2.2.3 for a discussion of potential hazardous materials accidents that were evaluated.

2.2.2.7 Description of Airports and Airways

This subsection provides descriptions of the nearby airports and regional airways.

2.2.2.7.1 Airports

There are no commercial airports within 5 mi of CPNPP (Reference 2.2-213). The nearest public airport is located approximately 10 mi north of CPNPP in Granbury. Granbury Municipal Airport has two runways located on a single asphalt stretch, with a length and width of 3603 ft and 60 ft, respectively. Runway 14 has a heading of 144 degrees magnetic (150 degrees true north), while Runway 32 has a heading of 324 degrees magnetic (150 degrees true north). The facility is a home base of operations for 82 single-engine aircraft, six multi-engine aircraft, and two helicopters. In 2007, Granbury Municipal Airport reported an average of 73 operations per day. Of those operations, 67 percent are local general aviation, 33 percent are transient general aviation, and none are military operations. (Reference 2.2-214)

CTS-00697


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.2-9

There are several modifications and repairs planned for Granbury Municipal Airport. Improvements include widening and resurfacing the existing taxiways, and building an additional runway parallel to Loop 567. All runways are intended to be upgraded to 30,000-lb pavement strength to accommodate the growing demand for business and corporate jet traffic from the Fort Worth/Dallas area (Reference 2.2-204). There have been no fatal aircraft accidents in the 5-mi radius of CPNPP in the last 20 yr. There have been four nonfatal accidents associated with Granbury in the last 10 years. (Reference 2.2-205)

Granbury Municipal Airport is the only public airport within 10 mi that exceeds500d operations a year, where “d” is the distance in miles from the airport to thesiteof the site. The reported average operations of 73 per day is well below the conservative threshold of 500D2 operations per year, where the variable D represents the distance in miles from the sites. There are no airports within the region that exceed the 1000D2 criterion.four public airports within the region thatexceed 1000d operations per year: Cleburne Municipal Airport, Fort Worth SpinksAirport, Fort Worth Meacham International Airport, and Arlington MunicipalAirport.

Below are some predominant airports of interest outside 10 miles that do notexeed the 1000 D2 criterion:

Cleburne Municipal Airport is a public, noncommercial airport located 29 mi east of the site. As of 2007, the airport had approximately 32,850 aircraft operations per year (Reference 2.2-233). There have been no fatal airplane accidents in the Cleburne area in the last 10 years. However, four nonfatal accidents have been reported during the same time period. (Reference 2.2-230)

Fort Worth Spinks Airport is a public, noncommercial airport located 33 mi northeast of the site. As of 2006, the airport had approximately 58,400 aircraft operations per year (Reference 2.2-235). There have been no fatal accidents in the Burleson area in the last 10 years. There have been two nonfatal accidents during the same time period (Reference 2.2-231).

Fort Worth Meacham International Airport is a public airport located 44 mi northeast of the site. As of 2007, the airport reported approximately 98,915 operations per year (Reference 2.2-234). There have been two fatal accidents associated with Fort Worth in the last 10 years. An additional 30 nonfatal accidents took place in the Fort Worth area during the same time frame (Reference 2.2-229).

Arlington Municipal Airport is a public, noncommercial airport located 48 mi northeast of the site. As of 2006, the airport reported approximately 151,475 operations per year (Reference 2.2-236). There have been no fatal accidents associated with the Arlington area in the last 10 years. Three nonfatal accidents took place during the same time frame (Reference 2.2-232).

CTS-00677

CTS-00699


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.2-13

simultaneously explode. The assumption of two trucks provides an added degree of conservatism. Note that this assumption bounds the explosive energy of commonly transported materials such as gasoline and propane. This conservative approach was taken because there are no restrictions on the type or quantity of materials that can be transported on the highway. The effects of blast-generated missiles would be less than those associated with the blast overpressure levels considered in Regulatory Guide 1.91. Because the overpressure criteria of the guide are not exceeded, the effects of blast-generated missiles are not considered.

There are no navigable waterways used for commercial shipping within 5 mi of the CPNPP Units 3 and 4 site, and there are no main railroad lines within 5 mi of CPNPP Units 3 and 4, as discussed in Subsection 2.2.2.6. Figure 2.2-201 shows a spur of the main railroad line that goes past CPNPP Units 3 and 4 and ends at CPNPP Units 1 and 2. This spur is used to transport materials to and from the site and is not used for commercial transportation of chemicals and commodities. Thus, this spur of the mainline is not considered to be a hazard to CPNPP Units 3 and 4.

2.2.3.1.1.2 Nearby Industrial Facilities

Subsection 2.2.2.1 identifies the following facilities located within 5 mi of CPNPP Units 3 and 4, along with any potential hazardous material stored at those locations: the IESI Somervell County Transfer Station; Wolf Hollow 1, LP; the DeCordova SES; the Glen Rose Medical Center; the Glen Rose WWTP; the Texas Department of Transportation Maintenance Station; and Cleburne Propane. Subsection 2.2.1 identifies six registered petroleum storage tanks within 5 mi of the CPNPP Units 3 and 4 site. The contents, capacities, and locations of the tanks relative to CPNPP Units 3 and 4 are summarized in Table 2.2-201.

The IESI Somervell County Transfer Station does not store any significant amount of hazardous materials. Though Wolf Hollow 1, LP does store some flammable or explosive chemicals, the quantity is too small to pose a hazard at CPNPP Units 3 and 4. Although quantities of hazardous materials were not available for WolfHollow, materials were screened out based upon their ability to form an explosive vapor at ambient conditions. Materials that did not screen out due to flashpoint were then assessed based upon maximum available quantities from commercial vendors, whether they were registered petroleum tanks, or expected quantities at this type of facility. The DeCordova SES does not house any chemicals that may pose a fire, explosion, or a vapor cloud risk to CPNPP Units 3 and 4. The Glen Rose Medical Center and the Glen Rose WWTP do not contain any flammable or explosive materials. There are no hazardous materials stored in significant enough quantity at the Texas Department of Transportation Maintenance Station to pose a threat to CPNPP Units 3 and 4.

Five registered underground storage tanks are located within 5 mi of the center point of CPNPP Units 3 and 4, three at Martha A. Newkirk and two at Somervell County Maintenance Department. Underground storage tanks do not represent a

CTS-00698


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.2-18

the screening criteria, detailed analyses for control room habitability are discussed in Section 6.4.

2.2.3.1.3.1 Background

Figure 2.2-201 shows the potential stationary industrial sources and mobile sources (barge and river traffic, local highways, and local rail lines) within 5 mi of the CPNPP site. Each of these is discussed and compared to the screening criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.78 in the following sections. Distances from the hazardous chemical location to the nearest main control room (MCR) air inlet were used in the screening analysis.

Regulatory Guide 1.78 establishes the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) values in National Institute for Safety and Health (NIOSH) "Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards" as the toxicity value screening criteria for airborne hazardous chemicals. Per Regulatory Guide 1.78, the NIOSH IDLH values were utilized to screen chemicals and to evaluate concentrations of hazardous chemicals to determine their effect on control room habitability. Quantities ofmaterials were not made available for Wolf Hollow. As a result, only chemicals with NFPA 704 Health Hazard or HMIS Health ratings for three or four materials were considered, all others were screened out. Next, several chemicals were screened out based upon shipping weights, distance from the site, quantities expected to be stored on site, and the ability of the chemical to form a vapor cloud. Of the chemicals remaining, several were screened out based upon not being stored in single volume containers greater than 100,000 lbs. For the remaining chemicals that were not screened out, the masses at Wolf Hollow were determined based upon the mass of those same chemicals located at DeCordova with an increase of 25 percent. This was based upon similar facilities and similar material quantities. Using these masses, the final screening was performed in accordance with RG 1.78, Appendix A.

The possible stationary and mobile sources of hazardous chemicals, as described in Subsection 2.2.2, were initially screened as potential toxicity hazards based on the properties of the chemicals housed at the facility or in the case of mobile sources that may transverse the route. Only chemicals with NFPA 704 Health Hazard or HMIS Health ratings of three or four (highly or extremely toxic, respectively) were considered as potential toxicity threats, unless otherwise specified in Regulatory Guide 1.78 or NUREG/CR-6624.

The control room habitability threats that could not initially be eliminated based on material properties or distance from the site were further investigated to determine if sufficient quantities of a chemical were housed at that location to warrant a detailed habitability analysis. Determination of the quantity of material that warranted a detailed control room habitability analysis is based on the methodology of Regulatory Guide 1.78.

CTS-00698


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.2-19

2.2.3.1.3.2 Source Evaluation

The following subsections provide descriptions of the release sources.

2.2.3.1.3.2.1 Mobile Sources

Of the three mobile sources (road, railroad, and waterway), only roadways are within 5 mi of the site; neither railroads nor waterways need be considered further based on the distance criteria prescribed in Regulatory Guide 1.78.

Roadway FM 56 poses the largest potential mobile risk to the CPNPP Units 3 and 4 control rooms due to postulated hazardous chemical releases. FM 56 serves as the bounding case because it is closest to the site (1.4 mi to the nearest MCR inlet) among the three roadways within 5 mi, and any registered hazardous material is permitted to travel this roadway. Based on a postulated chlorine release, the quantity of hazardous material that may transverse FM 56 is greater than the acceptable quantity as identified in Regulatory Guide 1.78. The frequency of a hazardous chemical release on roads was also examined. Results show the total frequency for a road-based hazardous material release is higher than the 1.0E-6 screening frequency of Regulatory Guide 1.78. Therefore, a more detailed control room habitability analysis is necessary for roadway transportation. Table 2.2-214 summarizes the chemical, quantity, and distance to the nearest CPNPP Units 3 and 4 MCR inlet to be considered for the control room habitability analysis in Section 6.4.

2.2.3.1.3.2.2 Stationary Sources

The fixed facilities that could not be initially screened out based on the chemicals stored at the facility are: Wolf Hollow I, LP; Cleburne Propane; DeCordova SES; and Glen Rose WWTP.

The hazardous chemicals housed at Glen Rose WWTP and Cleburne Propane are not sufficiently large to warrant a detailed habitability analysis based on the methodology in Regulatory Guide 1.78. DeCordova SES houses 15,294 lb of sodium hydroxide and 45,981 lb of sulfuric acid, which are sufficientthesequantities atwere evaluated based upon a distance of 3.76 mi from the nearest MCR inlet to warrant a more detailed control room habitability evaluation. This is conservative as the actual distance to DeCordova is 9.35 miles, which could have eliminated DeCordova from consideration in accordance with RG 1.75. Wolf Hollow I, LP houses sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid in sufficient quantities to warrant a more detailed control room habitability analysis. Those quantities are 19,118 lb and 57,477 lb, respectively, at 3.9 mi from the nearest MCR inlet.

Sunoco Pipeline, LP operates a pipeline which carries crude oil. This pipeline was the only pipeline that was not initially screened out based on the toxicity of the substance being transported. Crude oil may contain significant amounts of hydrogen sulfide, which is a toxic chemical. A postulated pipeline release may contain sufficient quantities of hydrogen sulfide to warrant a more detailed control

CTS-00696


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.3-14

Granbury. The small size of these lakes does not produce the conditions conducive to waterspouts.

2.3.1.2.4 Thunderstorms

Thunderstorms, from which damaging local weather can develop (tornadoes, hail, high winds, and flooding), occur about 16eight days each year based on data from the counties surrounding the site (Reference 2.3-225). The maximum frequency of thunderstorms and high wind events occurs from April to June, while the months from November through February have few thunderstorms. The monthly and regional distributions of thunderstorms and high wind events by county aredisplayed in Table 2.3-211.

2.3.1.2.5 Lightning

Data on lightning stroke density is becoming more readily available due to the National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN), which has measured cloud to ground lightning for the contiguous United States since 1989. Prior to the availability of these data, isokeraunic maps of thunderstorm days were used to predict the relative incidence of lightning in a particular region. A general rule, based on a large amount of data from around the world, estimates the earth flash mean density to be 1-2 cloud to ground flashes per 10 thunderstorm days per sq km (Reference 2.3-211). The annual mean number of thunderstorm days in the site area is conservatively estimated to be 48 based on interpolation from the isokeraunic map (Reference 2.3-212); therefore it is estimated that the annual lightning stroke density in the CPNPP site area is 25 strikes/sq mi/yr. Other studies gave a ground flash density, (GFD) (strikes/km2/yr), based on thunderstorm days per year (TSD) as GFD = 0.04 (TSD)1.25 = 0.04 (48)1.25 = 5 strikes/km2/yr or 13 strikes/mi2/yr (Reference 2.3-213).

Recent studies based on data from the National Lightning Detection Network (NLDN) (Reference 2.3-214) indicate that the above strike densities are upper bounds for the CPNPP site. Mean annual flash density given in Huffines and Orville (Reference 2.3-214) for 1989 – 96 is 3 to 5 strikes/km2/yr or 13 strikes/mi2/yr in North Central Texas.

2.3.1.2.6 Hail

Almost all localities in Texas occasionally experience damage from hail. While the most commonly reported hailstones are 1/2 to 3/4 inch in diameter, hailstones 3 to 3-1/2 inch in diameter are reported in Texas several times a year. (Reference 2.3-205)

During the period January 1, 1950 through March 31, 2007 there were 707 reports of large hail (3/4 in diameter or larger) occurrences within the five county area (Somervell, Bosque, Erath, Hood, and Johnson) around the site (Reference 2.3-225). This gives a mean annual frequency of 12.3 hailstorms per year for this

MET-03

MET-03


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.3-20

Texas is not a heavy snow load region. ANSI/ASCE 7-05, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” (Reference 2.3-220) identifies that the ground snowload for the CPNPP area is 4 lbf/ft2 based on a 50-yr recurrence. This is converted to a 100-yr recurrence weight of 4.9 lbf/ft2 (psf) using a factor of 1.22 (1/0.82) taken from ANSI/ASCE 7-05 Table C7-3. Local snow measurements support this ANSI/ASCE 7-05 value.

To estimate the weight of the 100-yr snowpack at the CPNPP site, the maximum reported snow depths at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport were determined. Table 2.3-202 shows that the greatest snow depth over the 30-yr record is 8 in. The 100-yr recurrence snow depth is 11.2 in using a factor of 1.4 to convert from a 30 yr recurrence interval to 100-yr interval (Reference 2.3-220).

Freshly fallen snow has a snow density (the ratio of the volume of melted water to the original volume of snow) of 0.07 to 0.15, and glacial ice formed from compacted snow has a maximum density of 0.91 (Reference 2.3-221). In the CPNPP site area, snow melts and/or evaporates quickly, usually within 48 hours, and does so before additional snow is added; thus, the water equivalent of the snowpack can be considered equal to the water equivalent of the falling snow as reported hourly during the snowfall. A conservative estimate of the water equivalent of snowpack in the CPNPP site area would be 0.20 in of water per inch of snowpack. Then, the water equivalent of the 100-yr return snowpack would be 11.2 in snowpack x 0.2 in water equivalent/inch snowpack = 2.24 in of water.

Because one cu in of water is approximately 0.0361 pounds in weight, a one in water equivalent snowpack would exert a pressure of 5.20 pounds per sq ft (0.0361 lb/cu in x 144 sq in). For the 100-yr return snowpack, the water equivalent would exert a pressure of 11.7 pounds per sq ft (5.20 lbm/sq ft/in x 2.24 in). This very conservative estimate is approximately twice the value provided in ANSI/ASCE 7-05.

The 100-yr return period snow and ice pack for the area in which the plant is located, in terms of snow load on the ground and water equivalent, is listed below:

• Snow Load = 11.7 lb/ft2

• Ice Load = 5.06 in * 5.20 lb/ft2/in = 26.1 lb/ft2

From Hydrometeorological Report No. 53, NUREG/CR-1486, the 24-hour Probable Maximum Winter Precipitation (PMWP) for a 10 sq-mi area is estimated to be 4327 in. The 72-hour PMWP for a 10 sq-mi area is estimated to be 5335 in. Assuming a linear relationship between these values gives a 48-hour PMWP of 4831 in. Because of the southern location of the site, almost all of this PMWP occurs as liquid. As stated in the US-APWR DCD Subsection 3.4.1.2, If PMWP were to occur, US-APWR safety-related systems and components would not be jeopardized. US-APWR seismic category I building roofs are designed as a drainage system capable of handling the PMWP. The US-APWR DCD also states

MET-04

CTS-00647

CTS-00647


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.3-22

The 3-second gust wind speed for a 100-yr return period is 96 mph. The importance factor is 1.15 and the exposure category is C. Wind loadings for the site are discussed in Subsection 3.3.1.

2.3.2 Local Meteorology

Replace the content of DCD Subsection 2.3.2 with the following.

2.3.2.1 Normal and Extreme Values of Meteorological Parameters

The CPNPP site is located approximately equidistant between Cleburne and Stephenville, Texas, west of the Brazos River. The site elevation is approximately 822 ft mean sea level (msl). The terrain slopes gradually from 300 to 700 ft msl southeast of the site to 1200 to 1800 ft msl northwest of the site (Reference 2.3-205).

2.3.2.1.1 General

In this subsection, the normal and extreme statistics of wind, temperature, water vapor, precipitation, fog, and atmospheric stability are described. Long-term data from proximal weather stations (Figure 2.3-207) have been used to supplement the shorter-term on-site data.

2.3.2.1.2 Surface Winds

Annually, the prevailing surface winds in the region are from the south to southeast while the average wind speed is about 10 mi per hour (mph) based on-site data from 2001-2004 andthrough 2006. As shown on Figures 2.3-208through 2.3-210, the annual resultant wind vectors for the Dallas Fort Worth Airport, Mineral Wells, and CPNPP are 149 , 138 , and 153 , respectively. The annual average wind speeds for Dallas Fort Worth Airport, Mineral Wells, and CPNPP are 10.3, 9.0, and 9.8 mi per hour, respectively. In winter there is a secondary wind direction maximum from the north to northwest due to frequent outbreaks of polar air masses (Figures 2.3-274 and 2.3-306).

Percentage frequencies of surface wind direction, by wind speed, at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport for the yr 1997 – 2006 are shown on a monthly and annual basis in Tables 2.3-220 through 2.3-232. According to the annual table, surface wind directions at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport are from the southeast, south-southeast, and south 43 percent of the time. These directions predominate during the individual months also, but to a lesser extent during November through March. The annual average wind speed (shown in Table 2.3-232) is 10.3 mi per hour. The maximum average wind speed (12.7 mph) occurs in the spring, while the minimum (8.2 mph) occurs in the fall.

Percentage frequencies of surface wind direction, by wind speed, at the Mineral Wells Airport for the yr 2001 – 2006 are shown on a monthly and annual basis in Tables 2.3-233 through 2.3-245. According to the annual table, Table 2.3-245,

CP COL 2.3(1)

MET-13


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.3-27

This figure shows that the annual mean of the monthly mean maximum temperature varied from approximately 74 F to 78 F over the last 70 yr. The annual mean of the monthly mean for Weatherford, Figure 2.3-320, shows that the annual mean has varied from about 62 F to 66 F over the last 45 yr. The annual mean before 1960 was slightly higher. The variation of the annual mean of the monthly minimum temperature at Weatherford (Figure 2.3-321) over the same time period (1897 – 2005) is less consistent showing a downward trend in temperature to a range of 49 F to 54 F in the last 45 yr.

The monthly minimum, mean, and maximum temperatures at the site are shown in Table 2.3-285. The annual daily mean at the site is 67 F, which is only slightly higher than the regional data. The monthly mean, minimum, and maximum temperatures at CPNPP over the time period of 2001-2004 and – 2006 are shown on Figure 2.3-322. The monthly mean, minimum, and maximum temperatures at Mineral Wells over the time period of 1971 – 2000 are shown on Figure 2.3-323.Comparison of the site data from Figure 2.3-322 with the Mineral Wells data in Figure 2.3-323 shows good general agreement but with relatively higher winter temperatures reported at the CPNPP site. This is due to the shorter period of record at the CPNPP site. The daily mean, minimum, and maximum temperatures at Mineral Wells over the time period of 1971 – 2000 are shown on Figure 2.3-324.

Annual exceedance dry bulb and wet bulb temperature values for Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (0.4 percent, 1 percent, and 2 percent) are given in Table 2.3-202 along with the 100-yr return dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures.

2.3.2.1.4 Water Vapor

Monthly and annual average relative humidity for four different times of day are given in Table 2.3-286 from 10 yr of record at the Dallas Fort Worth Airport weather station. Based on these data the annual average relative humidity is estimated to be about 65 percent. Monthly and annual average relative humidity for four different times of day are given in Table 2.3-287 from five yr of record at the Mineral Wells Airport. Based on these data the annual average relative humidity at Mineral Wells is estimated to be about 69 percent. The monthly and annual mean dewpoint temperatures and extreme maximum and minimum dewpoint temperatures are shown in Table 2.3-288, based on 1949 – 2006 data from the Mineral Wells Airport. The average daily dewpoint temperature from Mineral Wells Airport for the same time period is shown on Figure 2.3-325.

Based on 10 yr of data (1997 – 2006) from the Dallas Fort Worth Airport (Table 2.3-289), the worst one-day (May 26, 1997) average wet bulb temperature was 78.6 F and the corresponding average dry bulb temperature was 83.6 F. The worst five consecutive day period (June 29, 1997 – July 3,1997) is given in Table 2.3-290. The average wet bulb temperature for these five days was 77.4 F and the corresponding dry bulb temperature of 84.6 F. The worst 30 day consecutive period for Forth Worth is given in Table 2.3-291. The average wet bulb temperature for this period (July 4, 2001 through August 2, 2001) was 76.1 F and

MET-13

MET-04


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.3-32

Channeling of air flow, the other potential topographical effect, was evaluated in the CPNPP Unit 1 and 2 UFSAR by comparing the 10-meter wind directions with wind direction data from Dallas Love Field, where surroundings are relatively flat. A significant increase in wind direction frequencies for both up and down valley sectors (WNW, NW, NNW, ESE, and SE) would occur if channeling is an important influence. Approximately eight months of concurrent wind direction data were evaluated indicating that channeling of the air along Squaw Creek is not a prominent effect.

The channeling and air-drainage study results presented in the Unit 1 and 2 UFSAR are indicative of a relatively flat terrain with little, if any, topographic effect on the local airflow.

2.3.2.2.4 Cooling Tower Plume

The following discussion focuses on an evaluation of cooling tower plume effects. An assessment of the contribution of moisture to the ambient environment from cooling tower blowdown waste heat discharge is included. Finally, a qualitative evaluation of the effects of the cooling system on daily variations of several meteorological parameters is presented.

The operation of two Linear Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers (LMDCT) for each unit at the site results in the emission of small water droplets entrained in the tower air flow (i.e., drift). The droplets contain the dissolved solids found in the circulating water (e.g., salts) that may eventually deposit on the ground as well as on structures and vegetation. The drift droplet emissions are controlled by the use of drift eliminators that rely on inertial separation caused by exhaust flow direction changes. In addition to drift emissions, there is another potential impact of the cooling towers to the environment: the warm saturated air leaving the towers is cooled by the ambient air such that the water vapor condenses into a visible plume that may persist for some distance downwind depending on meteorological conditions (e.g., wind speed, relative humidity). These visible plume occurrences may pose some aesthetic and ground shadowing impacts. Under relatively high wind speeds and humid conditions, the aerodynamic wake turbulence may result in the visible plume touching down causing ground level fogging and, under freezing conditions, icing.

The meteorological data used in the plume analysis is a hybrid of various data sources, but the impact of merging these sources is assumed to be insignificant compared to the inherent uncertainties of predicting future meteorological conditions. The wind speeds and direction are taken from the site meteorology tower for the years 2001-2006: the temperature, humidity, and cloud cover data are from the national weather station at Mineral Wells located 37 mi to the northwest, and the mixing height data is from the airport at Stephenville, 20 mi to the southwest. The topography within 37 mi indicates no major terrain changes that would cause any of these locations to have a different microclimate from the other two. The general site is approximately 822 ft elevation, while Mineral Wells is at 930 ft and Stephenville is 1321 ft with no intervening hills or valleys.

MET-13


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.2-32

*Quantities of chemicals were not available from Wolf Hollow. Subsection 2.2.3.1.1.2 and 2.2.3.1.3.1discuss the screening criteria used in establishing what hazardous materials were used in the Explosion Hazards Analysis and Control Room Habitability Analysis, respectively.

Table 2.2-205Hazardous Materials at Wolf Hollow 1, LP*

Chemical Inventory

1,1 Dichloro-1-fluroethane, isopropyl alcohol

Benzene

Ethyl cyanoacrylate, hydroquinone

Carbon dioxide

Methylene chloride, methyl alcohol, propylene oxide

Phosphoric acid

Heptane, mineral spirits

Isopropyl alcohol

Light aliphatic naptha

Sodium hydroxide (Caustic soda)

Ethanol amine & HCL (Rea L 1254)

Sulfuric acid

Petroleum solvent

Industrial gear oil

Distillates, hydrotreated heavy paraffinic

Gasoline

Petroleum distillates

Diesel

Aerokroil, petroleum based oil

CP COL 2.2(1) CTS-00698

CTS-00698


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.2-43

Table 2.2-214Toxic Chemicals that do not Meet the Regulatory Guide 1.78

Screening Criteria(a)

a) These chemicals do not meet the Regulatory Guide 1.78 screening criteria. They are further evaluated for control room habitability in Section 6.4.

b) Evaluations were completed using 3.7 miles. Actual distance is 9.35 miles, as shown in Subsection 2.2.2.2.8. Therefore, the results of these evaluations are conservative.

c) This chemical does not readily disperse; therefore, it was not analyzed.

HazardousChemical Location Chemicals Quantity

Distance to the Nearest Units 3 and 4 MCR Inlet IDLH

CalculatedMaximum

Concentration in Control Room

Roadway FM 56 Chlorine 42,500 lb 1.4 mi 1.0E+01 ppm 5.7 ppm

DeCordova SES Sodium hydroxide

15,294 lb 3.76 mi(b) 10 mg/m3 Not Analyzed(c)

Sulfuric acid 45,981 lb 15 mg/m3 1.9E-4 mg/m3

Wolf Hollow 1, LP Sodium hydroxide

19,118 lb 3.9 mi 10 mg/m3 Not Analyzed(c)

Sulfuric acid 57,477 lb 15 mg/m3 2.0E-4 mg/m3

Sunoco Pipeline, LP

Hydrogen sulfide 1716 lb 0.33 mI 1.0E+02 ppm 4.17 ppm

CPNPP Units 1 and 2, Waste Management Bldg.

Sulfuric acid 1250 gal (19,159 lb)

733 ft 15 mg/m3 1.75E-03 mg/m3

CPNPP Units 1 and 2, Bulk Gas Storage

Liquefiedpetroleum gas

4000 gal 1400 ft 2.10E+03ppm

3.63E+01 ppm

Carbon dioxide 6000 lb 4.0E+04 ppm 1.46E+01 ppm

CPNPP Units 3 and 4, Water Treatment Chemicals

Morpholine 10,000 gal <300 ft 1.4E+03 ppm 3.49E-01 ppm

Dimethylamine 5000 gal <300 ft 5.00E+02ppm

1.65E+01 ppm

Hydrazine 1000 gal <300 ft 5.0E+01 ppm 9.29E-02 ppm

Ammonia 1000 gal <300 ft 3.0E+02 ppm 2.70E+01 ppm

Sulfuric acid 10,000 gal <1200 ft 15 mg/m3 6.19E-03 mg/m3

CP COL 2.2(1)

CTS-00696

CTS-00696


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.3-83

NOTES:

1. Storms listed at different sites in the same county on the same day were counted as separate events.

2. Data obtained for the period January 1, 1950 through July 31, 2006. Prior to 1981, the yearly storm averages were markedly less frequent, suggesting less thorough storm data collection. Consequently, the average/yr was based on 1981 through 7/31/20062006 data (~24 yr)

3. CPNPP site is in Somervell County. The other counties listed surround Somervell County.

4. Data recorded in the NOAA Storm Events Database, 1950 – 2005 http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms.

Table 2.3-211Thunderstorms and High Wind Events

Bosque Erath Hood Johnson Somervell All Five Areas Average per Yr

Month (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#/yr)

Jan 1 2 1 1 5 0.190.21

Feb 2 2 6 10 0.390.42

Mar 7 6 5 2 2 22 0.860.92

Apr 10 15 6 19 7 57 2.222.38

May 15 24 19 26 11 95 3.703.96

Jun 14 22 21 23 13 93 3.623.88

Jul 4 2 2 8 1 17 0.660.71

Aug 3 2 8 15 5 33 1.291.38

Sep 3 5 8 5 3 24 0.941.00

Oct 6 5 6 13 2 32 1.251.33

Nov 3 1 4 1 9 0.350.38

Dec 1 2 2 6 1 12 0.470.50

Total 67 87 81 128 46 409 15.7317.04

Percent 16.4% 21.3% 19.8% 31.3% 11.2% 100%

CP COL 2.3(1)

MET-03

MET-13


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.3-164

Reference: CPNPP site data 2001-2004 and 20062001 – 2006.

Table 2.3-285CPNPP Normal Temperatures

Daily Minimum Daily Mean Daily MaximumJAN 22.3 49.6 89.0FEB 19.2 48.9 84.6MAR 32.9 58.3 93.0APR 49.4 69.2 100.2MAY 47.5 75.2 98.9JUN 65.0 80.3 100.2JUL 72.7 84.9 103.1AUG 66.6 85.1 105.0SEP 56.8 77.4 97.8OCT 42.3 68.4 93.2NOV 28.0 58.0 88.0DEC 18.6 50.8 78.5

Annual 43.4 67.2 94.3

CP COL 2.3(1)

MET-13


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.3-165

NOTES:

1. Data from Local Climatological Data, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce, Asheville, NC, Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, Station No. 03927.

Table 2.3-286Relative Humidity Dallas Fort Worth Airport

for 4 Time Periods Per Day

1997 – 2006Time 00:00-06:00 06:00-12:00 12:00-18:00 18:00-24:00Jan 76% 72% 56% 66%Feb 78% 74% 58% 67%Mar 76% 69% 54% 65%Apr 76% 67% 52% 63%May 80% 70% 55% 66%Jun 80% 70% 54% 65%Jul 72% 62% 44% 55%Aug 69% 60% 43% 54%Sep 72% 63% 45% 58%Oct 77% 69% 52% 65%Nov 78% 71% 54% 67%Dec 75% 69% 53% 65%

Annual 76% 68% 52% 63%

MET-04

CP COL 2.3(1)


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.3-177

NOTES:

1. Instances of "trace" precipitation were not counted in determining hours of precipitation.


3. Period of Record – 10 yr (1997 – 2006).

Table 2.3-296Rainfall Frequency Distribution

Dallas Fort Worth Airport

NUMBER OF HOURS PER MONTH, AVERAGE YR

Rainfall(in/hr) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0.01-0.019 9 12 12 6 5 7 2 4 4 10 11 100.02-.099 16 25 15 10 11 15 4 7 8 14 16 18

0.10-0.249 5 6 6 5 6 4 2 3 3 6 4 60.25-0.499 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 20.50-0.99 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 01.00-1.99 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 02.0 & over 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 32 45 35 24 26 29 10 15 16 34 33 37

MET-04

CP COL 2.3(1)


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.3-180

Table 2.3-299 (Sheet 1 of 2)Percent of Total Observations (by Month) of Indicated Wind Directions and Precipitation


Sector January February March April May June July August September October November December TotalN 2.06 2.59 1.56 0.75 1.23 0.98 0.65 0.50 0.75 1.57 2.06 1.90 16.60

N-NE 0.76 1.12 0.80 0.56 0.53 0.45 0.20 0.37 0.56 0.61 0.81 1.09 7.87NE 0.28 0.78 0.59 0.20 0.34 0.25 0.03 0.16 0.31 0.55 0.72 0.65 4.86

E-NE 0.67 0.81 0.78 0.39 0.30 0.41 0.05 0.28 0.25 0.45 0.64 0.78 5.80E 1.06 1.18 1.42 0.59 0.67 0.59 0.27 0.36 0.64 0.62 0.51 0.64 8.56

E-SE 0.87 0.95 0.90 0.55 0.47 0.89 0.36 0.33 0.42 0.64 0.51 0.73 7.62SE 0.64 1.11 0.95 0.84 0.65 1.00 0.41 0.31 0.23 0.90 0.69 0.55 8.28

S-SE 0.53 0.70 0.86 0.98 0.75 1.08 0.31 0.31 0.27 1.39 0.62 0.47 8.26S 0.94 1.20 0.61 1.04 1.06 1.15 0.42 0.47 0.30 1.18 0.59 0.61 9.57

S-SW 0.27 0.19 0.31 0.30 0.28 0.34 0.19 0.25 0.12 0.22 0.20 0.22 2.88SW 0.08 0.16 0.22 0.20 0.09 0.16 0.12 0.19 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.12 1.62

W-SW 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.16 0.11 0.17 1.42W 0.09 0.14 0.25 0.30 0.16 0.19 0.05 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.30 2.32

MET-04

CP COL 2.3(1)


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 02.3-181

NOTES:

1. Instances of "trace" precipitation were counted as precipitation.


3. Period of Record – 10 yr (1997 – 2006).

W-NW 0.41 0.20 0.30 0.17 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.25 0.30 0.19 2.17NW 0.42 0.41 0.64 0.37 0.27 0.19 0.09 0.08 0.20 0.55 0.67 0.53 4.41

N-NW 0.97 0.97 0.69 0.31 0.51 0.20 0.28 0.16 0.48 0.76 1.23 1.17 7.73Total 10.12 12.64 11.01 7.72 7.50 8.06 3.54 4.13 5.05 10.18 9.95 10.12 100

Table 2.3-299 (Sheet 2 of 2)Percent of Total Observations (by Month) of Indicated Wind Directions and Precipitation


Sector January February March April May June July August September October November December Total

MET-04

CP COL 2.3(1)

Chapter 3

3_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

CTS-00638 3.3.1.2 3.3-1 Clarification Add “CPNPP Units 3 and 4 do not have site-specific seismic category II buildings and structures”.

0

CTS-00600 3.7.1 3.7-3 Editorial correction Change “is” to “has been”. 0 MAP-03-001

3.7.4.23.7.5

3.7-12 3.7-14

Deletion of COL item Delete COL item. 0

MAP-03-002

3.7.4.5

3.7.5

3.7-12 3.7-13 3.7-14


CTS-00532 Table 3.7.2-1R

3.7-17 3.7-18

Editorial correction Revise LMN to highlight changes.

0

MAP-03-003

3.8.1.4.1.33.8.6

3.8-1 3.8-13 3.8-14


MAP-03-004

3.8.1.5.1.23.8.1.5.2.23.8.6

3.8-1 3.8-1 3.8-14


CTS-00602 3.8.1 3.8-2 Clarification Change “Chapter 2” to “Subsection 2.5.4”.

0

MAP-03-005

3.8.1.63.8.6

3.8-2 3.8-14


MAP-03-006

3.8.1.63.8.6

3.8-2 3.8-14


MAP-03-007

3.8.1.63.8.6

3.8-2 3.8-14


MAP-03-008

3.8.1.63.8.6

3.8-3 3.8-14


MAP-03-009

3.8.1.63.8.6

3.8-3 3.8-14


MAP-03-010

3.8.1.63.8.6

3.8-3 3.8-14


MAP-03-011

3.8.1.63.8.6

3.8-3 3.8-14


CTS-00607 3.8.4.1.3.2 3.8-6 3.8-7

Editorial correction Change “the ESW pump houses” to “UHS ESW pump house”.

0

3_2

Change ID No.



FSART/R

MAP-03-012

3.8.4.7 3.8-11 Revision of COL Item

Change “Monitoring of seismic category I structures is required to be performed” to “a site-specific program for monitoring and maintenance of seismic category I structures is performed”.

0

Change ID No.

Section Page Reason for change Change Summary Rev. of

T/RCTS-00603 Table 3.9-

202 3.8-18 Consistent with DCD

Rev.1 Change unit and number in the table.

0

CTS-00604 3.9.3.4.2.5 3.9-2 Editorial correction Clarify wording. 0

CTS-00531 3.9.3.4.2.5 3.9-2 Editorial correction Change “are” to “is”. 0 CTS-00605 Table 3.9-

201 3.9-5 Editorial correction Change COL item number. 0

MAP-03-014

3.10 3.10.7

3.10-1 3.10-3


CTS-00606 3.11 3.11-1 Clarification Replace EQ program implementation dates with milestones.

0

CTS-00639 3.11.5 3.11.3 Editorial correction Change “Table 3D-201 by completion of [Later]” to “the Equipment EQ Technical Report (Reference 3.11.3)”.

0

MAP-03-015

3.13.1.2.33.13.3

3.13-1 3.13-2


MAP-03-016

3.13.1.2.53.13.3

3.13-1 3.13-2


Chapter 4

4_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

Chapter 5

5_1


Change ID No. Section FSAR Rev. 0 Page


FSART/R

CTS-00528 5.2.1.2 5.2-1 Editorial correction Include words about RG 1.84.

0

CTS-00675 5.2.1.2 5.2-1 Editorial correction Add "Units 3 and 4" after Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant.

Delete a period in LMN

0

Chapter 6

6_1




FSART/R

CTS-00518 CTS-00644

6.4.4 6-i 6.4-1 6.4-3 1.8-43

To reflect resolution of acceptance review issue

Include dose evaluation in the control room due to a post-accident release from the other US-APWR unit or existing CPNPP unit.

0

6.4.4 Editorial correction Add Subsection “6.4.4.2” in Table 1.8-201 and Subsection 6.4.7.

0

CTS-00642 6.1 6.1-1 Update All 6.1 COL Items have been deleted from the DCD. This FSAR section is now IBR with no departures or supplements.

0

MAP-06-001 6.1.1.2.2 6.1-2 Deletion of COL Item

Delete COL Item. 0

MAP-06-002 6.1.1.1 6.1-1 6.1-2

Deletion of COL Item

Delete COL Item. 0

MAP-06-003 6.1.1.2.1 6.1-1 6.1-2


Delete COL Item. 0

MAP-06-004 6.1.1.2.1 6.1-1 6.1-2


Delete COL Item. 0

MAP-06-005 6.1.2 6.1-2 6.1-3


Delete COL Item. 0

MAP-06-006 6.2.1.1.3.4 6.2.1.5.7

6.2-1 6.2-3


Delete COL Item. 0

MAP-06-007 6.2.2.3 Table

6.2.2-2R

6.2-1 6.2-4 6.2-6


Delete COL Item. 0

MAP-06-008 6.2.4.2 6.2-2 6.2-3


Delete COL Item. 0

MAP-06-009 6.2.5.2 6.2-2 6.2-3


Delete COL Item. 0

DCD_06.02.06-2

6.2.6.1 6.2-3 DCD_RAI 06.02.06-2

Change “first sentence “ to “first and second

sentences”.

0

CTS-00643 6.3 6.3-1 Update All 6.3 COL Items have been deleted from the DCD. This FSAR section is now IBR with no departures or supplements.

0

MAP-06-011 6.3.2.8 6.3-1 6.3-2


Delete COL Item. 0

MAP-06-012 6.3.2.2.4 6.3-1 6.3-2


Delete COL Item. 0

6_2



FSART/R

MAP-06-013 6.3.2.4 6.3-1 6.3-2


Delete COL Item. 0

Change ID No. Section Page Reason for change Change Summary Rev. of

T/RMAP-06-014 6.4.3

6.4.76.4-1 6.4-3

Revision of COL Item

Revise COL Item to only discuss automatic actions and manual procedures for the MCR HVAC system in the event of postulated toxic gas release.

0

MAP-06-015 6.4.2.2.1 6.4-1 6.4-3


Delete COL Item. 0

CTS-00652 6.4.4.2 6.4.7

6.4-2 6.4-3

Re-evaluation of COL Item

Associate COL 6.4(2) with Subsection 6.4.4.2.

0

CTS-00653 6.4.4.2 6.4-3 Erratum Change “5.2 ppm “ to “5.7 ppm”.

0

MAP-06-016 6.5.1.7 6.5-1 Deletion of COL Item

Delete COL Item. 0

MAP-06-018 6.6.8 6.6-1 Revision of COL Item

Revise description to only identify the implementationmilestone of the program.

0

CTS-00696 6.4.4.2 6.4-1 NRC Staff Reviewer CommentIncorporation from 03-23-25-09 Hazards Analysis Audit

Added pointer to Table 2.2-214 for toxic chemicals that do not meet RG 1.78 screening criteria.

1


Part 2, FSAR

Revision: 06.4-2

adjacent US-APWR unit due to a radiological release from the other US-APWR unit is bounded by the dose to control room operators in the affected unit. While it is possible that the other US-APWR unit may be downwind in an unfavorable location, the dose at the downwind unit would be bounded by what has already been evaluated for a single US-APWR unit in the DCD. In addition, because the shortest distance between existing Comanche Peak Unit 1 or Unit 2 and US-APWR Unit 3 or Unit 4 is several times the separation between Unit 3 and Unit 4, the dose to either US-APWR unit control room from either existing operating unit would be bounded by a release at the same US-APWR Unit. Simultaneous post-accident radiological releases from multiple units at a single site are not considered to be credible.

6.4.4.2 Toxic Gas Protection

Replace the second paragraph in DCD Subsection 6.4.4.2 with the following.

The control room habitability analyses consider postulated releases of toxic chemicals from mobile and stationary sources in accordance with the requirements of RG 1.78. Chemicals, including chemicals in Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) Units 1 and 2, are identified and screened as described in Subsection 2.2.3.1.3.

Several hazardous chemicals exceed the screening criteria provided in RG 1.78 and an analysis is required to determine control room concentrations. Toxicchemicals that do not meet RG 1.78 screening criteria are identified in Table 2.2-214, and calculated maximun control room concentrations of each chemical are also described in Table 2.2-214. Using conservative assumptions and input data for chemical source term, CPNPP Units 3 and 4 control room parameters, site characteristics, and meteorology inputs, postulated chemical releases are analyzed for maximum value concentration to the MCR using the HABIT code, version 1.1. RG 1.78 specifies the use of HABIT 1.1 software for evaluating control room habitability. HABIT software includes modules that evaluate radiological and toxic chemical transport and exposure. For this analysis of chemical release concentrations, EXTRAN, and CHEM modules are utilized in the code. EXTRAN models toxic chemical transport from the selected release point to the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) intake for the MCR. CHEM is then applied by HABIT to model chemical exposure to control room personnel, based on EXTRAN output and MCR design parameters.

The meteorological conditions assumed for these cases are conservatively set at G stability and 2.5 m/s wind speed, or slightly more extreme than 95th percentile for the CPNPP site. The 2.5 m/s wind speed is higher than would be expected for G stability but is conservative in that it introduces the chemical gas into the intakes faster than at lower speeds. The analyses are thus bounding. Lower concentrations are calculated on average using F stability and 1 m/s wind speed.

The HABIT-based analysis determines the peak concentration in the MCR and compares this level to the RG 1.78 criterion, the specific chemical listed

CTS-00518CTS-00644

CP COL 6.4(1)CP COL 6.4(2)

CTS-00518CTS-00652

CTS-00696

Chapter 7

7_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

Chapter 8

8_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

CTS-00451 List of Figures,Figure8.2-201

8-iii8.2-23

Editorial correction Add “Relevant Portions of” to the title of the Figure 8.2-201.

0

CTS-00640 8.2.1.2 8.2-3 Editorial correction Change “Any” to “Both of any”.

0

CTS-00686 8.2.1.2.1.1 8.2-5 Editorial correction Delete “from”. 0 CTS-00641 8.2.1.2.1.1 8.2-6 Erratum Change “is” to “are”. 0 CTS-00477 8.2 8.2-6 Clarification Change description of offsite

power system. 0

CTS-00479 8.4 8.4-1 Editorial correction Change section title in bold font.

0

Chapter 9

9_1




FSART/R

CTS-00586 9.2.1.2.1 9.2-1 9.2-2

Consistent with Subsection9.4.5.2.6

Change “ESWP house” to “UHS ESW pump house”.

0

CTS-00608 9.4 9.4-7 Erratum Change heating coil capacity of EFP (M/D) Area Air Handling Unit from “1 kW” to “2 kW”.

0

DCD_09.05.01-6

9.5.1.39.5.9

9.5-3 9.5-18

DCD_RAI 09.05.01-6

Add Subsection 9.5.1.3. 0

DCD_09.05.01-15

Table9.5.1-1R

9.5-46 DCD_RAI 09.05.01-15

Add LMNs in Table 9.5.1-1R and Table 9.5.1.2R.

0

DCD_09.05.01-7

Table9.5.1-1R

9.5-55 DCD_RAI 09.05.01-7

Add “see Subsection 9.5.1.3” to Table 9.5.1.1R.

0

DCD_09.05.01-5

Table9.5.1-1R

9.5-56 DCD_RAI 09.05.01-5

Fill in Remarks on Table 9.5.1-1R.

0

DCD_09.05.01-15

Table9.5.1-2R

9.5-112 9.5-113

DCD_RAI 09.05.01-15

Add LMNs in Table 9.5.1-1R and Table 9.5.1.2R.

0

Chapter 10

10_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

Chapter 11

11_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

CTS-00482 11.2.3.1 11.2-2 Editorial correction Delete repeated phrase. 0 CTS-00481 Table11.2-

14R 11.2-14 Editorial correction Add “hr” in transit time. 0

MAP-11-001 11.3.3.3 11.3-2, 11.3-3

Deletion of COL Item Delete COL Item. 0

Chapter 12

12_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

DCD_12.01-2

12.1.3 12.1-2 Delete Outdated RG Delete RG8.20, 8.26, and 8.32.

0

DCD_12.02-15

12.2.1.1.10 12.2-1 DCD_RAI 12.02-15 Add “40 CFR 190”. 0

CTS-00463 12.5 12.5-1 Clarification Change description about entry into the interim waste storage building.

0

Chapter 13

13_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

CTS-00484 13.1 13.1-17 13.1-18

Editorial correction Change location of “Table 13.1-201 (Sheet 5 of 5)”.

0

CTS-00486 13.5 13.5-4 13.5-7

Editorial correction Delete reference 13.5-201.

0

CTS-00488 13AA Table of Contents

13AA-ii Editorial correction Modify dot lines in Table of Contents.

0

Chapter 14

14_1




FSART/R

CTS-00635 14.2.2 14.2-1 Editorial correction Change "Replace the last paragraph" to "Replace the last sentence of the second paragraph".

Change "Appendix 14AA provides a description ...." to " A description .... are reconciled in Appendix 14AA".

0

Chapter 15

15_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

Chapter 16

16_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

Chapter 17

17_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

CTS-00490 17.3 17.3-1 Editorial correction Change description about quality assurance program.

0

Chapter 18

18_1


Change ID No.



FSART/R

Chapter 19

19_1


Change ID No.



FSAR

T/RMAP-19-001 19.1.5.1.1 19.1-8

19.3-1 Deletion of COL Item

Delete COL Item. 0

MAP-19-002 19.2.5 19.2-1 19.3-1


Delete COL Item. 0

CTS-00491 ACRONYMS ANDABBREVIATIONS

19-v Erratum Change “Westuinghouse” to “Westinghouse”.

0

Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any ... · Revision History Revision Date...

Documents

Transcript of Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any ... · Revision History Revision Date...